FINAL REPORT

G-51 TASK FORCE

TO EXPLORE THE ROLE OF FIU

DEPARTMENT CHAIR

January, 2008

Task Force Members

Amir Mirmiran

Carmela McIntire

Cathy Ahles

Deodutta Roy

Galen Kroeck

Gloria Deckard

Janine King

John Clark

Leonard Bliss

Meredith Newman

Pascal Becel

Richard Tardanico

Sneh Gulati

2

Executive Summary

A task force comprising chairpersons from various colleges was assembled by the

Provost at the Spring 2007 G-51 meeting to study the position of Department Chair at

FIU. The charge given to the task force included creating a job description, identifying

needed preparation and professional development to aid chairs and to provide a final

report making recommendations aimed at how FIU can help chairs to perform more

effectively.

The task force met eight times over seven months with activities between meetings

followed by an iterative feedback-dissemination-revision process. Information was

obtained from two formal focus groups of chairs, by holding informal discussions within

various colleges, and by polling all FIU chairs with an online survey. Task priorities and

time spent on different functions were rated on the survey as was the amount of guidance

available at FIU for carrying out the job. Most interviewed and polled chairs took full

advantage of this opportunity to describe the considerable array of activities engaged in

on the job, and vet their concerns about the obstacles they encounter on a daily basis.

Many made suggestions for positive change and, unexpectedly, a high degree of

consensus was revealed.

The task force incorporated findings into a job description (shown in Appendix E) and

the following set of recommendations that are discussed more fully in the text of this

report.

Recommendations:

1. Deans should reinforce their commitments to ensure that all appointed chairs have

the full support of their faculties, and deans should consistently respect unit norms

in the appointment of chairs.

2. In those departments where it is known that the chair’s position will soon become

vacant, deans should disseminate information to that department’s faculty as to

the formal process by which a new chair is to be selected.

3. Where necessary, deans should encourage chairs to identify possible successors to

the chair position, and provide advance training and mentoring to those

individuals before a sitting chair’s term comes to an end. Appointment of a deputy

chair in some large departments might facilitate transition.

4. At least some G-51 meetings should focus on what chairs really want to talk

about.

5. Form a Chairs Assembly, operating as an informal body to provide a forum where

chairs can share information, experiences, and develop knowledge regarding

effective implementation of their job responsibilities.

6. Training sessions should be available to new chairs to provide them with the tools

to manage complaints; handle grievances; deal with non-performing employees,

disruptive students and difficult faculty, hire international faculty, hire academic

3

staff, and provide specific training to minimize the possibility of legal and

personnel problems.

7. Chairs agree that training sessions for new implementation (e.g. Panthersoft

financials) should be individualized and brought to them to provide answers to

specific questions unique to each department.

8. Develop a case study exchange for small groups to discuss common yet difficult

problems encountered by department chairs.

9. The Provost’s office should insist upon deans conducting regular, fair, and

meaningful evaluations of the chairs.

10. Policies concerning service as chair should become formal, transparent, and

university-wide.

11. Service as department chair should become formally recognized as a principal

asset for promotion to higher academic rank.

12. The annual calendar of a chair’s duties should become recognized as 12 months

long.

13. Significant salary incentives should become attached to the chair position.

14. Sabbaticals should become guaranteed after specified periods of satisfactory

service as chair.

15. FIU administration should take proactive steps to provide strong administrative

support for Department Chairs.

16. We recommend the appointment of an “administrative ombudsman” to serve as a

link pin and conduit to identify those problems within the FIU infrastructure as

recognized by those carrying out the policies, procedures and functions of the

University and those in the position to rectify them.

17. A G-51 committee should follow up in gathering more information on the length

of service of chairs, and the impact that this variation has on Departmental

performance and on the careers of those serving as chair.

18. A G-51 committee should explore more fully the succession plan for identifying

those who would be effective in the position of chair and ways to develop them

for ascending into the position.

19. The University should take proactive steps to permit chairs to conduct their own

research.

20. FIU administration should identify ways to increase job satisfaction of department

chairs and convey appreciation to those who demonstrate a noble sense of duty to

their colleagues and University through their willingness to fulfill this critical

function.

4

EXPLORING THE ROLE OF FIU DEPARTMENT CHAIR

INTRODUCTION

At the Spring 2007 meeting of chairpersons (G-51), Provost Berkman and Executive

Provost Wartzok recruited volunteers for a new committee project that would study the

role(s) of the chairperson at the University. Comprised of chairpersons from Arts and

Sciences, Business, Engineering, Journalism and Mass Communication and Health

Sciences, the committee further defined its charge in these ways:

To provide a job description of the work that chairs do;

To ascertain from sitting chairs how they allot their time to the

various duties required of them;

To suggest institutional changes and resources to help chairs

perform more effectively;

To recommend useful preparation and professional

development to aid chairs;

To examine the existing system of compensation and rewards

for chairs, recommending changes as necessary.

5

METHODS USED IN TASK FORCE PROJECT

The G-51 Chair Task Force was established at the G51 meeting in April 2007. At this

meeting, each table of participants selected two individuals to serve on the Task Force.

These names were forwarded to the Provost for his review and appointment. The Provost

sent letters to each individual appointing them to the Task Force and requesting their

participation.

Task Force Meetings

The Task Force met eight times between May 2007 and January 2008 plus two meetings

with Chair Focus Groups held in Summer of 2007. The first meeting of the Task Force

was held on May 30, 2007. Provost Berkman and Vice Provost Wartzok attended the

initial meeting and clarified the Task Force charge. At that meeting the Provosts

requested a job description as one work product of the Task Force’s activities and final

report making recommendations for needed improvements in training and development

of chairs at FIU and ideas for improving the ability of chairs to carry out their critical

function. The Task Force was told that nothing was “out of bounds” for their

consideration, including issues of selection and compensation of chairs. Galen Kroeck

was elected Chair and has served to convene the Task Force, to facilitate the efforts of

subcommittees and focus groups, and to act as a liaison with the administration. The

Task Force confirmed its goal to produce a report that addresses the following objectives:

A. To provide a “job description” of the actual work that chairs do;

B. To ascertain what roles chairs view as priorities, and where they actually spend

their time;

C. To consider what resources might make chair more effective in performing

their duties;

D. To discuss what changes could be implemented to make chair more effective;

E. To discuss what additional professional development would benefit chair most.

The Task Force began by reviewing a number of existing documents. One of these, a

January 2001 “Report by the Committee to Explore the role of the Chair at FIU,” was

recovered and distributed by Gloria Deckard to the group. The results of that study

seemed to have only minor relevance to the charge given to this Task Force and data

appeared to lack important information needed to carry out its functions. For example,

one focus of the 2001 report was the different roles played by in-unit and out-of-unit

chairs, an issue that is now apparently moot at FIU. The Report did contain the

interesting results of a previous survey of chairs on the roles that they considered most

important at the time.

In addition, the Task Force collected existing job descriptions including those of the

School of Journalism, the College of Education, and several found online at the

California State System1, University of Alaska

2, and University of North Carolina

3 to

name a few (none located in Florida SUS). The Task Force was asked by various

members to review other documents pertaining to its charge including various studies and

1California State System http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/Records/Reports/CSU_Chairs_survey_report.pdf

http://www.csus.edu/umanual/acad/umd03150.htm 2 University of Alaska- Fairbanks http://www.uaf.edu/uafgov/faculty/deptchair.html 3 Univ of North Carolina http://provost.utk.edu/docs/procedural/ProceduralHandbook.pdf

http://www.uncg.edu/tlc/Chairs/ChairHndbk.html

6

papers4, newsletters

5 and books

6. Following review of these documents, the Task Force

began using the School of Journalism job description as a very rough draft, a document

that was expected to undergo extensive revision. For the next several weeks, committee

members exchanged numerous emails revising and editing that document to the extent

that the original content was barely apparent.

It was decided that involvement in an iterative process of idea exchange with as many

existing chairs as possible would be beneficial to outcomes and credibility of the

activities of the Task Force. In this regard, it was decided that multiple focus groups

composed of sitting chairs would be one primary activity of the Task Force and that all

members of G-51 would be surveyed to maximize involvement and the range of opinions.

Two subcommittees were developed during the initial stages to expedite the work

process: Job Description and Survey. These subcommittees met and produced draft

documents which were then shared with the full Task Force via email. Task Force

members met on June 6 and June 13, 2007 to discuss, edit and refine the documents. The

Task Force also determined that the survey information would be enhanced and guided

by incorporating information gleaned through the Focus Groups. A decision was made to

hold two Focus Groups for members of G-51. The survey and job description were

edited in accordance with the data/information resulting from Focus Groups held on June

27 and June 29, 2007.

Through July, the Task Force members exchanged documents through email to continue

the editing process and refine the survey and job description. On August 15, 2007, the

Task Force met to walk through the survey and job description. Dr. Kroeck informed the

4 Sources of Stress for Academic Chairpersons

Gmelch, Walter H.; Burns, John S., Journal of Educational Administration, v32 n1 p79-94 1994

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0

=EJ483381&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ483381

Leadership and Perceived Effectiveness Knight, W. Hal; Holen, Michael C., Journal of Higher Education, v56 n6 p677-90 Nov-Dec 1985

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0

=EJ326925&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ326925

Role of Academic Department Chair (Furman)

http://www.furman.edu/policies/view.htm?policy=480&name=111.2%20Role%20of%20the%20Academic%20Department%20Chair

I Used to Run a Department, but Then I Got Wise

L. J. Davis, Chronicle of Higher Education, November, 2002 http://chronicle.com/subscribe/login?url=http%3A%2F%2Fchronicle.com%2Fweekly%2Fv49%2Fi14%2F14b01101.htm

Chair Survival Guide FIU College of Arts & Sciences

http://cas.fiu.edu/Survch02.pdf

5 The Department Chair

6 Strengthening Departmental Leadership: A Team-Building Guide for Chairs in Colleges and Universities

Ann F. Lucas, Jossey Bass, 1994. The Life Cycle of a Department Chair, Walter H. Gmelch & John H. Schuh (Editors), Jossey Bass,

2004. Leading Academic Change : Essential Roles for Department Chairs, Ann F. Lucas, Jossey Bass, 2000. Academic Leadership: A Practical Guide to Chairing the Department, Deryl R. Leaming, Anker Publishing, 2006. The Essential Department Chair: A

Practical Guide to College Administration, Jeffrey L. Buller, , Anker Publishing, 2006. The Research-Productive Department:

Strategies from Departments That Exce, Carol J. Bland, Anne Marie Weber-Main, Sharon Marie Lund, and Deborah A. Finstad, Anker Publishing, 2006. The Department Chair's Role in Developing New Faculty into Teachers and Scholars, Estela Mara

Benisimon, Kelly Ward, Karla Sanders , Anker Publishing, 2000. Chairing Academic Departments: Traditional and Emerging

Expectations, N. Douglas Lees, Anker Publishing, 2007. Departments that Work: Building and Sustaining Cultures of Excellence in Academic Programs, Jon F. Wergin, Anker Publishing, 1998. Chairing an Academic Department. Walter H. Gmelch & Val D.

Miskin, Anker Publishing, 1993.

7

members that the Provost had selected a subcommittee of three Deans to interact with the

committee. On September 6, 2007 the Task Force met with Vice Provost Wartzok and

administrative liaisons from the FIU Deans. A few revisions were made to the project

and both groups determined that the results of the process should lead to better

communications and provide framework for the discussions.

Survey data were collected in early October of 2007 using the external agency Survey

Monkey to collect responses in an anonymous online format. Data were retrieved and

imported into SPSS and analyzed. Following the collection of data from the survey, the

Task Force met on October 16, 2007 to review the results. The Task Force prepared a

presentation of these results for the G-51 meeting on October 19, 2007. Following the

presentation at G-51, the Task Force met November 28, December 12 of 2007 and on

January 16, 2008 to review input and prepare the final report.

8

Focus Groups

The Task Force identified G-51 members from diverse departments across the University

and requested participation in a Focus Group regarding the Chair Job Description. Two

Focus Groups of five or six chairs each were held on June 27 and June 29, 2007. The

Focus Groups were facilitated by an external individual with facilitation experience,

Linda Bliss, who contracted her time and skills. Sarah Latham, Graduate Assistant, took

notes in the sessions. Task Force members attended but did not participate in the

discussions of the Focus Groups.

The Draft Job Description was shared with Focus Group Participants prior to the

scheduled session. Each session followed a standard protocol shown in Appendix A of

this report. A summary report of the Focus Groups was provided to the Task Force. The

information provided was used to edit and refine the Job Description. The information

also provided additional questions that were incorporated into the Survey of Chairs.

Survey of Chairs

The Task Force developed an extensive survey to gain input and information from Chairs

regarding their job. The survey was the result of several efforts including:

Initial development by Subcommittee

Review and Editing by Task Force

Pre- Focus Groups

Post- Focus Groups

Discussions with Survey Monkey

Decisions on format and delivery options

Assurances on anonymity

Draft of survey tested by Task Force Members

Final editing

The Survey consisted of 94 total items divided into various sections/content areas.

Following each section on the survey, respondents were encouraged to provide comments

in available text boxes that allowed them to clarify, add to or qualify their quantitative

responses to the items in that section. These sections included:

Tasks and Functions (62 items, 7 categories)

1. Faculty and Staff Relations

2. Student Relations

3. Internal Relations

4. External Relations

5. Program and Department Administration

6. Hindrances/difficulties Encountered

7. Department and Chair Demographics

Obstacles to Success in Position (15 items + write in item)

Department and Chair Demographics (17 items)

The Task Force requested that the Provost’s Office send an email to all G-51 members

encouraging participation. This email was sent to fifty nine members of G-51 on

September 9 and a follow-up reminder was sent on October 3 by the Task Force

reminding chairs of the deadline for completing the survey. Survey Monkey7 was open

7 The survey can be seen directly at: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=fpSBlHa66rSKX0Q401tN7w_3d_3d

9

for G-51 members to complete until October 7, 2007. Following the close of availability,

the data were downloaded and analyzed using SPSS.

10

Iterative Review Process

Both the job description and survey content was continuously revised based on

discussions held among Task Force members among each other and with other chairs in

their respective colleges. Extensive revisions were made to both documents. Because a

draft of the job description was provided to Focus Group participants prior to their

attendance, a wide range of commentary was incorporated into the ongoing modification

of that document. For example, several chairs indicated that it was too weak in describing

the chair activities with words like “coordinates” and ‘assists” when the task is, in fact,

the ultimate responsibility of the chair, thus weakening the authority and ability to fulfill

the responsibilities of the position. Following Task Force discussions, both survey items

and task descriptions were broken down into multiple tasks, combined into a single

function, re-worded and modified in accordance with the iterative survey feedback

process of

Distribution → Feedback → Revision → Feedback → Refinement

to create a final work product that would be acceptable across the University and accurate

in describing the extensive demands of the Chair’s job. Though this process, comments

by focus group participants, Task Force members and other chairs in their respective

colleges, could be used to modify the various versions of the survey instrument and draft

job description. Survey quantitative responses and survey respondents’ comments were

incorporated into the final version of the job description and the recommendations made

in this report.

11

RESULTS OBTAINED IN TASK FORCE PROJECT

Results Task Force Internal Meetings

Eight meetings of the Task Force were held between May and December of 2007.

Minutes of those meetings are contained in Appendix E of this report. Meetings

fluctuated between discussion of our roles as chair, problems encountered and tasks we

could accomplish through this charge. Early in the discussions it became apparent that

chairs have little awareness of what chairs do in other colleges, the problems they

encounter and the solutions they are able to cultivate. The first recommendation of the

Task Force was revealed as the importance of finding a way to put chairs in

communication with each other to discuss their common issues. It was apparent that this

communication should take place outside of the G-51 assembly that tends to focus on

dissemination of information from the Provost’s office and for which chairs have little

input to the agenda of those meetings. We further ascertained that vast differences may

exist across FIU chairs in regard to importance of and time spent on different tasks and

functions. Given the additional charge of identifying needed training, guidance and

assistance from FIU in helping chairs to do their job, we conferred extensively about how

to untangle the issues we had identified. The importance of inclusion and input of as

many FIU chairs as possible was most apparent.

Through a process of face-to face meetings, broad email exchange/dissemination and

phone contacts, Task Force members discussed the plans for conducting two focus

groups and a survey instrument constructed on the basis of our discussions and the input

from the focus groups. The bulk of these discussions were concerned with the content,

logistics, transparency and accuracy of the focus group and survey projects.

In addition to these approaches initiated by the Task Force for fulfilling its charge, it was

decided that a final work product of the Task Force should be a comprehensive job

description of the Chair position at FIU. This was an ongoing focus of the committee that

began by review of current job descriptions existing at FIU and those of some other

universities through web search. By consolidating those we located, a draft job

description was developed. That draft underwent extensive review by committee

members and through circulation to all Chairs, Deans and Provosts, input was solicited to

improve the document and make it relevant to all chairs at FIU. The Provost and/or Vice

Provost attended several of our deliberations and a sub committee of Deans attended one

meeting to review our progress and provide input from the Deans’ perspective on our

survey instrument and draft job description. Through this process and through

incorporation of focus group feedback and survey results into the document., a final draft

version was created as shown in Appendix F of this report.

Finally, based on our review of the input from other Chairs, Deans, survey and focus

group results, a set of recommendations emerged regarding ways the University can 1)

improve clarification of the selection process, succession and development of new

Department Chairs, 2) provide specific training, guidance and assistance to existing

Chairs, 3) create consistency and equity in evaluation and compensation of chairs, 4)

remove obstacles impeding Chair success and 5) identify future endeavors to carry on the

work of this Task Force as part of a continuous improvement plan.

12

Results of Focus Groups

Focus groups conducted with two groups of department chairs at the end of June 2007. A

detailed report presented by the outside consult who conducted the focus groups is

presented in Appendix B of this document.

It was difficult for the participants to generalize about all the things that chairs actually

do. The functions carried out by chairs and the proportion of time that they devote to

each of these functions were described as varying widely depending on differences

among departments such as department size, make-up of levels of faculty, length of term

and 9 or 12 month assignment, degree of faculty input into appointments, discretion in

decision making, amount and competence of administrative support, extent of faculty

participation in administrative tasks, and availability of resources. However, chairs were

readily able to identify the most important job activities that they performed and the

approximate time spent on these functions including faculty evaluations, scheduling and

teaching assignments, faculty and staff searches, dealing with daily problems and

conducting analyses for a variety of purposes. Some focus participants pointed out other

important functions, but there was less agreement as to the amount of time spent on

activities such as making faculty feel appreciated, providing guidance to faculty,

obtaining resources, facilitating the tenure/promotion process, creating a vision for the

department and carrying out activities to maintain accreditation.

Focus group discussions revealed that, on the whole, attending chairs were not very

knowledgeable about the situations of chairs in colleges and schools outside of their own.

This included being familiar with the way other chairs maximize their effectiveness.

There were many times during the focus groups when one chair would explain how his or

her department structure, procedure, or policy helped solve a problem voiced by another

attendee. Others shared such information garnered at their previous institutions. Overall,

attendees appeared to find this a valuable, if unintended, aspect of these focus groups.

Focus participants expressed that they do not believe that much training for chairs is done

by the university. Instead, chairs currently learn their jobs by being program director of

graduate programs and sitting in on council of chairs meetings, observing previous chairs,

serving as chair at other universities, Howie-in-the-Hills training, working with

department secretaries, especially about the expectations of others and the mechanics of

the job, obtaining information from the previous chair, serving as acting chair, regular

meets with other chairs as a group for discussion of issues & mentoring, and through a

two day introduction at beginning of fall semester in some colleges.

Focus group members made several suggestions for the training and preparation of

incoming department chairs including a mentoring program where experienced chairs

could work with new chairs, creating a group of experienced and new chairs to serve as a

resource group, formal sessions with experienced chairs to go through a series of case

studies depicting situations that are likely to occur, and providing experiences as an

assistant/deputy chair prior to appointment as department chair. Some specific areas of

needed training that were suggested included time management, training in the use of

Panthersoft Financials with trainers sent to specific offices rather than offering general

large-scale training sessions, creating awareness of legal issues, training in how to

dealing with disruptive students and how to manage non-performing employees.

13

There was considerable discussion in the focus groups about the breadth of authority and

resources available to carry out the typical responsibilities of chairs. Further, it should be

noted that many of the concerns about factors that hindered the ability of attending chairs

to be the effective administrators and leaders they envisioned themselves to be, were

ultimately connected to things outside of their departments. At both sessions numerous

barriers were identified as being related to university infrastructure and university

funding. Some attendees identified additional college or school related barriers.

The integrated focus group notes are contained in Appendix B of this report. Using

statement and consensus ideas generated in the focus groups, the Task Force made

extensive revisions to the draft job description of chair. Also based on the content of

these focus discussions, items were identified, modified or broken down into multiple

items for the survey intended to quantitatively distinguish the functions of chairs and

better describe how varying departmental characteristics impact the priority and time

spent on the variety of functions.

Results of the Survey of Chairs The survey posted approximately 62 items to department chairs regarding the tasks they

perform to which they responded as to the degree or priority given each function, how

much time was spent on the function, and how much guidance is available from FIU for

carrying out the function. For all sections of the survey, comment boxes were provided

for respondents to clarify their responses and reveal opinions not otherwise captured by

the survey. A set of fifteen items plus one write in item were surveyed regarding the

hindrances to effective performance were included in the survey to identify common

concerns across departments. A set of sixteen demographic questions about the

respondents’ department and the chair position were included for a total of 94 items on

the survey. The survey is shown in Appendix C of this report.

Respondent Demographics

Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix D of this report show demographic characteristics of the

respondents to the survey. Forty-four individuals responded to the questionnaire

including 34 chairs, 6 directors, 1 dean (acting as chair) and 3 respondents did not

indicate their position title. This represents a 75% response rate among the fifty nine

members of G-51 asked to respond. On average, chairs indicated a mean of 3.65 years of

experience and additional descriptive characteristics describing the size of their

departments as shown in Appendix D. Other demographic results are shown in Appendix

D in graphic form in Figures 1, 2 and 3. Twenty nine respondents indicated being on a 12

month appointment, 9 indicated being on 9 month appointment and 4 did not indicate the

length of their appointment. Fifteen of the respondents indicated that they were elected,

14 were appointed, 12 were approved by faculty to be appointed and three did not

indicate the nature of how they were appointed to the position.

Priority of Tasks/Functions

Table 3 of Appendix D shows results regarding the priority assigned by chairs to different

tasks and functions. With regard to the priority assigned to the 62 different tasks, fewer

differences across the University were found than had been expected based on statements

made by focus group members (based on correlation and regression analyses among

department size variables and Analyses of Variance using college designations and

appointment type nominal categories).

14

Creating meaningful annual evaluations was given the highest priority followed by

creating a positive faculty climate for research, followed by serving as a conduit between

faculty and administrators, supporting goals and procedures of the promotion and tenure

process, and providing leadership by creating vision for the advancement of the

department. Lowest priority was given to supporting career planning and placement,

insuring that a working list of available internships, establishing security and emergency

policies and supporting programs and services of honorary societies, alumni and alumni

fundraising.

Time Spent on Tasks/Functions

Table 4 of Appendix D shows results regarding the amount of time spent by chairs on

different tasks and functions. With regard to time spent on tasks, again less variability

was found across the University than was expected based on the comments made in focus

groups. In other words, only trivial effects were found for the time spent on different

functions using correlation and regression analyses for assessing the association between

time spent and department size variables and Analyses of Variance using college

designations and appointment type nominal categories.

Time spent on creating and establishing the course schedule was by far the task in which

the greatest time was spent regardless of department of college designation. Assessing

and creating meaningful evaluations, serving as a conduit between faculty and

administrators and ensuring the department and providing leadership for the advancement

of the department followed as the tasks in which the greatest amount of time was spent.

The similarity between the time spent, and the priority given to the tasks is obvious. The

least amount of time spent was assigned to establishing security and emergency policies,

ensuring a working list of available internships, coordinating with Career Planning and

Placement, supporting programs and services in honorary societies and alumni and

assigning faculty to graduate students were all given less time than other tasks.

All high priority tasks had a positive significant correlation with the amount of time spent

on the task.

Guidance Available for Carrying Out Tasks/Functions

Table 5 of Appendix D shows results regarding the amount of guidance chairs find

available for carrying out different tasks and functions. With regard to the amount of

guidance available the respondents indicated that the most guidance was available in the

faculty handbook/FIU Policies and Procedures Manual and Union Contract that enabled

them to adhere to ethical principles and use reasoned judgment. Respondents also

indicated that at the high end of guidance available for those tasks involving meeting

accreditation standards, monitoring student forms and processes, approving payroll using

ADP and supporting the goals of the promotion and tenure process. However it should

be noted that, even those tasks with the highest ratings for guidance available were still

below the 3.0 average in which very basic guidance was seen to be available. In other

words, even for those tasks in which chairs believe some guidance is available, they did

not believe that even minimal basic guidance or training was available to them.

At the low end, chairs indicated that little to no guidance is available for overseeing the

mentoring of junior faculty by senior faculty, for discussion professional development

plans with faculty, for forming and monitoring departmental committees, for coordinating

activities with advisory groups, or for maintaining liaisons with other areas of Colleges,

15

Universities, and external organizations. As far as guidance available for high priority

tasks, significant correlations were found for only for two high priority tasks, serving as

a conduit between faculty and administration (r=.354, p<.05) and supporting the tenure

process (r=.330, p<.05).

Obstacles to Chair Effectiveness

Fifteen items were used to determine what chairs feel have the most negative impact on

their effectiveness based on concerns raised in the focus groups. These results are shown

in Table 6 of Appendix D. All fifteen items were evaluated as having at least some

negative impact on their effectiveness. Most notably, University infrastructure and

bureaucracy, the scope of the job limiting the ability to conducts own research and having

to put out fires leaving little time to concentrate on leadership and vision and inadequate

faculty resources were evaluated as having the most negative impact. Again, there was

agreement among the chairs that all fifteen items had at least some impact on their overall

effectiveness.

Differences Due to Size of Department

One of the assumptions put forth in the focus groups was that department size would

have a great impact on priorities and time spent, but this was not found to be the case.

Results in Table 7 of Appendix D show correlations among department size variables.

Our Focus Group respondents had indicated a general assumption that larger departments

have supporting staff and supporting administrators to deflect some of the time required

for carrying out certain functions, however, these results did not support that conclusion.

Unexpectedly low correlations were found between the number of supporting

administrators and the number of faculty (r=.326, p>.05), the number of courses offered

(r=.394, p<.05), and the number of majors (r=.181, p>.05). While there was a marginally

significant correlation between the number of supporting staff and number of courses

offered, this correlation indicates far less correspondence than might be expected with a

need driven allocation of support. While still not as high as might be expected, the

correlation between number of faculty and number of courses offered (r=.673, p<.01) was

more in line with a proportional allocation. The number of adjuncts used was

significantly related to the number of courses offered (r=.69, p<.01), but when considered

as a percentage of instruction, use of adjuncts was not found to be related to department

size variables.

As far as the number of faculty, staff or courses taught, there were no significant

correlations with any of the high priority items. However there was a positive

correlation between number of faculty and staff (r=.597, p<.05) and a negative

correlation between the number of staff and the number of courses taught by the chair

(r=-.460, p<.05).

Compensation of Department Chairs

Some questions were asked regarding the compensation received by department chairs.

Table 8 of Appendix D shows that 62% are compensated at the amount of $5,000

annually. Ten percent receive $10,000 annual compensation and the other 18% were

spread out from $0 to $30,000. Figure 9 in Appendix D shows that thirty five of the forty

four respondents indicated that their increment does not roll into base. Four indicated that

16

it did roll into base, two indicated it does roll into base incrementally each year and three

did not respond.

17

CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Selection, Succession and Development of New Department Chairs

Section 5 of the Academic Affairs Policies and Procedures Manual specifies the following about

the appointment of chairpersons and the length of their terms in office:

“Chairpersons and directors of academic departments/schools who report to a Dean are approved

by the President in accordance with unit governance and upon recommendation of the Dean and

Provost. In arriving at a recommendation for the assignment of a chairperson/director, the Dean

shall consult with the department/school faculty before final recommendation is made. Subject to

satisfactory annual performance review and evaluation, assignments will normally follow a three-

year cycle and may be extended.

According to BOG Rule 6C-5.935 (3), faculty holding administrative responsibilities serve at the

will of the chief administrative officer and may, at any time, receive a change in classification or

assignment. If the faculty member is reclassified and reassigned, the salary rate and appointment

period shall be adjusted to reflect the new responsibilities.”

In practice, the assignment to the role of Chairperson is somewhat variable, depending on unit

norms. Further, an analysis of our survey results suggests that chairs are not fully aware of the

actual rules through which they have come to office. In our survey, only about one-third of

respondents indicated that they had become chair through appointment by their dean. The other

two-thirds believed that they had become chair through election by their faculty, although about

half of those understood their election to have been only a recommendation of appointment to

their dean. If chairs do not understand the rules through which they have come to office, it is

certain that their faculties are not aware of the official processes either.

Our survey did not gather information on the length of time in office for chairs. Nor did it ask

chairs whether there were departmental limits on the number of terms that they could serve. The

longest-serving chair in our survey had been in office for ten years.

Few if any chairs seem to have sought appointment as a means of career advancement. On the

contrary, most viewed their appointments as a form of service to their departments and colleges,

and most thought that this serviced detracted from their favored professional activities, research

and teaching. Although most chairs have exhibited impressive leadership ability, other

potentially effective leaders have declined to serve as chair because of the costs to their careers

and difficulty of realizing success in the job. Despite being good leaders, most new chairs have

lacked the specific administrative skills (and support) needed to perform their duties at the highest

level. Accordingly, they need the kind of individualized training described elsewhere in this

report.

Recommendations: (1) Deans should reinforce their commitments to ensure that all appointed

chairs have the full support of their faculties, and deans should consistently respect unit norms in

the appointment of chairs; (2) In those departments where it is known that the chair’s position

will soon become vacant, deans should disseminate information to that department’s faculty on

the formal process by which a new chair is to be selected; (3) Where necessary, deans should

encourage chairs to identify possible successors to the chair’s position, and provide advance

training and mentoring to those individuals before a sitting chair’s term comes to an end.

Appointment of a deputy chair in some large departments might facilitate transition

18

Specific Training, Guidance and Assistance to Existing Chairs

The survey results and focus group findings point to the fact that there is a need for more

institutional involvement in the training of chairs as well as more individualized training.

Involvement in G-51

One concern department chairs had expressed early in the process had to do with their

ability to have input at the G-51 meetings. Prior to Fall meeting, the G-51 served only as

a vehicle to disseminate the Provost’s vision and the important documents and policies of

the financial and academic leaders of the University. Little attention was paid in these

meetings to the concerns of chairs themselves. However, the Provost’s Office upon

hearing about this concern took immediate action and involved our task group in the Fall

G-51 agenda and intends to encourage similar input in future meetings. The Provost’s

office was very amenable to other suggestions we made such as distributing items in

writing before G51 meetings as the presentations are not always relevant to a Chair’s day

to day job.

Recommendation: At least some G-51 meetings should focus on what chairs really want

to talk about.

Form an Assembly of Chairs

One of the unexpected outcomes of the focus group sessions was the realization that

attending chairs were not very knowledgeable about the situations of chairs in colleges

and schools outside of their own. This includes being familiar with the way other chairs

maximize their effectiveness. There were many times during the focus groups when one

chair would explain how his or her department structure, procedure, or policy helped

solve a problem voiced by another attendee. Others shared such information garnered at

their previous institutions. Overall, attendees appeared to find this a valuable exchange.

By extension, it appears that chairs are quite isolated. For example some chairs

commented that they thought several issues discussed in the focus groups were unique to

their situation. In reality, many obstacles that affect the implementation of chairs’ job

duties are common problems among many chairs. The job of Department chair occupies

an important position within the administrative structure of the university. It is the place

where the administration hits the road with regard to implementation of policy directed

toward both faculty and students. Often times, chairs have first hand knowledge of

systemic problems unknown to upper administration. Chairs may not share that

information because they are unaware of others repeatedly experiencing the same issue,

or they are unable to share the information because, when attempting to voice their

concerns, their voices are not necessarily transferred up the chain of command to the

administrators who can implement necessary changes to remedy the situation.

Recommendation: We recommend the formation of a Chairs Assembly. Operating as an

informal body of departmental chairs, the mission of this assembly would be to provide a

forum where administrative chairs can share information and experiences, plus develop

knowledge regarding the effective implementation of their job responsibilities. If well

supported, operated, and respected, this body could provide departmental chairs with

training, support, and guidance in the performance of their jobs, as well as, provide the

19

upper administration with a valuable sounding board regarding university policy and

operations.

Specific Training

According to the survey results, department chairs evaluate the training they have

received to carry out their duties as varying on average from none to just basic guidance.

In other words chairs believe that the preparation currently provided for their jobs is very

limited, if not altogether inexistent in some areas. The focus group discussions also

revealed that chairs have learned by being graduate studies/program directors and sitting

in on council of chairs meetings; obtaining information from previous chairs; attending a

two-day general training at Howie-in-the-Hills and/or within their College; serving as

acting chairs; meeting with other chairs as a group for mentoring and discussion of

issues; working with department secretaries, especially where the mechanics of the job

and expectations of others are concerned. Therefore, it appears from those findings that

most of the chairs’ introduction to their roles and responsibilities involves a lot of

piecemeal information, and perhaps occasionally, unreliable advice.

While training for incoming chairs clearly needs to be implemented to cover all aspects

of the job’s responsibilities, focus group members made suggestions on specific areas

such as legal affairs and personnel issues where training is more blatantly lacking and

information not easily found on the FIU website. Training is available for new

department chairs through the Department Chair Institute8 and through ACE workshops

9

and online resources10

.

Recommendation: Training sessions should be made available to new chairs to provide

them with the tools (and individuals’ contacts for future questions or problems) to

manage complaints; handle grievances; deal with non-performing employees, disruptive

students, and difficult faculty; hire international faculty and academic staff; so on and so

forth. Legal issues must be handled at the university level, but better provision of

information to chairs is also necessary to minimize the possibility of legal and personnel

problems.

New Systems

Another area where changes should be introduced is the training of chairs in the

implementation of new systems. In that case, training should be individualized and

brought to the department. Chairs view the current practice of large training sessions as

essentially inadequate. College or university-wide sessions—on occasion, without

hands-on—are at best an inefficient way of providing training for chairs; at worst, a mere

waste of time. In the case of Panthersoft financials, many chairs still feel helpless with a

system that is anything, but user-friendly. These sentiments have a strong resonance

given the experience of recent months when so many areas have been in transition

through Panthersoft, new scheduling, ADP, etc. Not only have chairs been burdened

with new time-consuming and mechanistic tasks associated with the new systems, they

also have received insufficient training to handle the changes effectively.

8 http://departmentchairinstitute.net/index.html

9 http://www.acenet.edu//AM/Template.cfm?Section=chairs_workshop

10 http://www.acenet.edu/resources/chairs/docs/Graham_Constructing.pdf

20

Recommendation: Chairs agree that training sessions should be individualized and

brought to them, if they are to fulfill their purpose. Trainers should be sent to the

individual units to provide hands-on training and work one-on-one with chairs and staff,

as needed. In this manner, specific questions could also be answered and issues unique

to each department could be addressed.

Case Study Exchange

The survey of chairs showed that participants in G-51 meetings found it helpful to hear

from and to question panels comprised of experienced chairs. With plenty of time for

interchange, chairs can learn from one another’s experiences. Case studies are used for

professional development of chairs in a number of universities, including the University

of Michigan. Usually, centers for teaching and learning (such as the FIU Academy for the

Art of Teaching) provide case studies to participants in advance, so that they may come

to meetings prepared to comment and ask questions. FIU could provide such training, of

course, perhaps to small groups of chairs in various configurations: veterans with chairs-

elect; chairs from a particular disciplinary group (science, social science, humanities);

chairs with two or fewer years of experience. The Academy could provide guidance in

both the preparation and use of case studies, since case studies based on FIU situations

would be the most helpful. Like most centers for teaching and learning, our Academy is a

member of the POD Network (Professional and Organizational Development), an

invaluable resource for professional development of teaching assistants, faculty, and

administrators.

Recommendation: Develop a case study exchange of common yet difficult problems

encountered by department chairs.

Consistency & Equity In Evaluation And Compensation Of Chairs

Evaluation of Chairs

In our survey, chairs were asked to evaluate the level of priority given to, and amount of time

spent on, fifty-eight specific tasks. Chairs ranked a meaningful annual evaluation of their

colleagues as their single highest priority task of the sixty-two items; of all the tasks that they

perform, chairs ranked the evaluation of their colleagues second in the amount of time that they

spent on their various duties. Most chairs agreed that evaluations of their faculty members served

to record their achievements, as well as to assess the merit of those achievements for purposes of

tenure, promotion, and the distribution of merit pay. Most chairs clearly felt that they would have

failed in their jobs if they had not provided fair, timely, and detailed evaluations of their faculty

members.

Deans, however, appear not to take the evaluation of their chairs as seriously, especially in some

colleges. For instance, in the College of Arts and Sciences, evaluations of chairs have only been

carried out in two of the last five years. Further, some of these evaluations failed to document the

achievements of the chairs, or even to offer a detailed evaluation of performance. Instead, the

“evaluations” were a proxy for future assignments or a signaling device for the Dean’s priorities

for the coming years. The large majority of chairs will either return to their departments to carry

out their normal duties of professors, or they will move into other administrative positions at the

University. In either case, having a written record of their achievements as chair, and an

evaluation of their performance, is critical to their professional well-being. For those continuing

as chair, a fair evaluation is critical both to their morale in their job and to their ability to improve

in their work.

21

Recommendation: Our recommendation is simply that just as deans insist upon chairs fulfilling

their duties to evaluate their faculty colleagues, the Provost’s office should insist upon deans

conducting regular, fair, and meaningful evaluations of the chairs.

Compensation of Chairs

Effective administrative leadership of departments is crucial to institutional excellence in

teaching and scholarship. Such leadership, then, is a cornerstone academic role.

Performing the duties of departmental leadership, however, leaves reduced time for

teaching and little or no time for scholarship (see UCLA). The repercussions are costly

both to the careers of post-chair faculty and to universities as institutions. When chairs

step down from their posts, they typically have lost considerable ground as scholars and

in some cases as teachers. This diminishes the quality of their post-chair performance

according to standard criteria of faculty evaluation; impairs the competitiveness of post-

chair faculty for salary gains and academic promotions; and marginalizes post-chair

faculty within departments and the university. The cost to post-chair faculty is financial

as well. Current chair stipends—which vary widely within and across the university’s

colleges and schools—have not increased at FIU over an extended period of time.

Moreover, chairs have been removed not only from the collective bargaining unit but also

from routine consideration for significant annual salary raises. Finally, the stipends tend

not to be folded into base salaries when the terms of chairs end. The typical scenario is

that chairs are notable losers—as scholars, teachers, and earners—by the end of their

terms. The losses, including their ramifications for the university as an institution,

compound in ensuing years. A further repercussion is that these disincentives make

faculty with vibrant research and teaching agenda reluctant to serve as chairs. When such

faculty accede to serve as chairs, the disincentives tend to weaken commitment to the

position’s duties and they foster dysfunctional rapid turnover. We propose that the

university’s criteria of rewards address these challenges by acknowledging two facets of

the role of department chairs (see UCLA11

):

o that the administrative leadership of departments stands together with

research and teaching as a bedrock academic endeavor;

o and that associated with prevailing conditions of chair service are

serious career and institutional costs.

Arguably, the academic importance of department chairs and the institutional costs

associated with serving as chair at FIU are magnified as our urban public university

competes to gain entry into the highest tier of both Carnegie research status and the State

of Florida university system.

Recommendations: Within the framework of these challenges and baseline

recommendations we propose the following specific actions: 1) that policies concerning

service as chair become formal, transparent, and university-wide; 2) that service as

department chair become formally recognized as a principal asset for promotion to higher

academic rank; 3) that the annual calendar of a chair’s duties become recognized as 12

months long; 4) that significant salary incentives become attached to the chair’s position;

11

UCLA, “The UCLA CALL,” Appendix 11, Evaluating Administrative Titles

http://www.apo.ucla.edu/call/append11.htm

22

and 5) that sabbaticals become guaranteed after specified periods of satisfactory service

as chair.

23

Obstacles Impeding Chair Success

Administrative Support

The vital importance of a highly competent assistant for the Department Chair was one of

the most potent, unambiguous and repetitive issues revealed by this Task Force through

its deliberations, solicited commentaries, focus groups and survey results. Results

strongly indicated that there is substantial and apparently unanimous concern among

department chairs that they could not do their job effectively without the support of an

assistant who is highly knowledgeable about FIU infrastructure and processes. Some of

these structures and processes include Panthersoft student admissions, administration and

financial systems, scheduling systems, financial aid, curriculum and curriculum change

systems, budgeting, records, faculty and adjunct resources, student assistance through

familiarity and rapport with contact persons throughout the university. Computer

competence (Word, Excel, Powerpoint), supervisory capabilities, meeting and event

planning skills are all necessary for this position. It is clear to all who have done the job

of Chair that this is a highly demanding position and that chairs cannot function without a

highly competent administrative assistant or office manager. It is further the belief of our

Task Force and many of the chairs we interviewed that the importance of this position in

facilitating the effectiveness of the chairs is not recognized by administration. This is

evidenced by the low salary offered for these positions and the lack of assistance

provided in securing competent individuals for this critical function in the University.

Given the current system, Chairs are able to find and competent individuals in this

position by luck and retain them by appealing to their sense of duty rather than through

recruitment support and adequate incentives.

Recommendation: We cannot overstate the evident need for the FIU administration to

take proactive steps to provide strong administrative support for Department Chairs.

Removing Impediments Due to Infrastructure

Given the concerns that were expressed in both the focus groups and reconfirmed as the

single most obstructive aspect of the job, we have formed certain recommendations

regarding the opportunity the University might have to remove this obstacle of

bureaucracy and infrastructure of the University that so many chairs feel negatively

impacts their success. Specifically, we recommend that an administrative ombudsman

position be created within the university. This position would enable chairs and other

administrators to vet their concerns for possible resolution and removal of these

obstacles. Department chairs could also serve as the conduit between faculty and the

administration of the University with regard to antagonizing problems known to exist by

those working “in the trenches” yet ones that do not seem apparent to those in decision

making authority. Need for this position is particularly evident given the administrative

penchant for formulating policies and procedures without input from the chairs who

implement them.

Access to the ombudsman is recommended to be restricted to department chairs and

deans but with a defined process for identifying these problems so that faculty and staff

would also have an outlet to express their ideas and concerns about University

infrastructure blocking their abilities to do their jobs. By having a single individual to

report these concerns to without fear for repercussions, the University could gain a more

mature infrastructure, become a better place to work and both efficiency and

24

effectiveness may well improve. Chairs could amalgamate multiple concerns of different

faculty, preserve faculty anonymity and put forth reasonable issues that could be

ameliorated if the University administration were aware of them.

Recommendation: We recommend the appointment of an administrative ombudsman to

serve as a link pin and conduit to identify those problems within the FIU infrastructure as

recognized by those carrying out the policies, procedures and functions of the University

and those in the position to rectify them.

Future Endeavors To Carry On The Work Of This Task Force

Recommendation: A G-51 committee should follow up in gathering more information on the

length of service of chairs, and the impact that this variation has on Departmental performance

and on the careers of those serving as chair.

Recommendation: A G-51 committee should explore more fully the succession plan for

identifying those who would be effective in the position of chair and ways to develop

them for ascending into the position.

A common concern was expressed by many participants in our deliberations, perhaps

well captured in the comment by one respondent “Being Chair doesn’t facilitate success.

Any success is hard work, you’re on your own, and it’s done at the expense of your

research and/or your family and ‘personal time’. Evaluation needs to be adjusted to

lessen the research and teaching load”.

Chairs are the models for other faculty, must create a research climate, yet themselves are

actually prevented from research achievements of their own by the demanding nature of

the chair’s job. Some of those who would be best able to fulfill the chair role will not

consider it due to the harm being chair would do to their careers. Suggestions by a panel

made at the Fall 2007 G-51 meeting for chairs finding ways to do their own research

were viewed by many chairs as (euphemistically speaking) trivial. The University should

take a real look at this critical problem and identify ways to rectify it. The problem exists

at other research universities as well, but is not as prevalent as it is at FIU and steps

should be taken to ascertain how the problem is handled elsewhere.

Recommendation: The University needs to take proactive steps to permit chairs to

conduct their own research.

Another extremely common concern was expressed by many participants in our

deliberations, and is also well captured in the comment of one respondent “We must

work on vision and strategic planning but our job is consumed with mechanistic roles.

Important issues are dropped because other responsibilities take all your time. Juggling

the interests of the department and day to day stuff makes all this secondary…. Protect

chairs from having MORE dumped on them”. We recognize that chairs are the first line

to implement the mission of the university, the extensive and frequent policy changes, the

enrollment goals, quality of education mandates, curriculum development processes,

accreditation documentation, budget, payroll, administrative reports, faculty evaluation,

and both faculty and student policies. These functions inevitably result in extreme

25

amounts of paperwork, yet the University continues to add to these demands without

removal of any required functions. We have recommended that adequate support staff be

made available, that some duties could be relieved through appointment of Deputy

Department Chairs in large departments. Theses and other considerations might be made

by a future committee charged with improving the position. However, this

recommendation is concerned with something our Task Force believes to require

considerable contemplation by the FIU administration. While it may not be otherwise

apparent in this report, one of the quintessential findings by this Task Force was that FIU

department chairs, in general, feel grossly under-appreciated for the sacrifices made to

this University.

Recommendation: Explore the level of job satisfaction of department chairs. Identify

ways to increase it and convey appreciation to those who demonstrate a noble sense of

duty to their colleagues and University through their willingness to fulfill this critical

function.

26

Appendices

Appendix A

Focus Group Interview Guide The G-51 subcommittee on roles and functions of chairs

Interview guide

Thank you for setting aside time to be part of a focus group examining the role of department chairs at FIU.

These focus group interviews are being performed to 1) identify tasks of the job as chair that may not be

apparent in many job descriptions; 2) reveal issues that influence the job performance of chairs at FIU and

3) help the university to better understand how to prepare individuals to take on chair responsibilities.

After we complete two focus groups we are planning to develop an on-line survey that will be distributed to

all chairs at FIU.

I’d like this to be an informal, give and take discussion about the role of a chair. I’m going to ask you some

specific questions about such things as your job description, how you define good job performance of a

chair, what helps or hinders your ability to function well as a chair.

Assess areas of job responsibilities outlined in job description

1. Do you think that this job description captures the activities you perform as chair? (we will

provide them with the job description information)

2. Are there missing items?

Perception of quality job performance

3. What distinguishes an excellent chair from a good chair?

4. What are the most important job activities you perform?

5. How do you decide what are the most important?

6. What are your three biggest priorities for improving the standing of or the quality of your

department?

Influences on job performance

7. How were you prepared, trained or illuminated about the job related activities and

responsibilities of chairs in your department, college, and at FIU?

8. Prior to assuming the chair, what kind of information, training or briefings would have been

helpful for preparing you to assume the position?

9. If you could receive additional training now that you are a chair, what would it be, and how

would it benefit you, your department or the university?

10. What has helped you most in performing well as a chair?

11. What has hindered you most in performing well in your job as chair?

Nature of the chair jobs at FIU

12. What major NEW responsibilities could chairs assume to improve the performance of

departments at FIU?

13. What tasks do you currently have that could better be performed by someone else?

14. What are the significant motivations for becoming a chair at FIU?

27

Appendix B

Integrated Focus Group Notes (2 sessions)

The G-51 subcommittee on roles and functions of chairs: Focus group findings submitted by Linda Bliss, focus

group facilitator. Note taken at both focus groups by Sarah Latham.

The two focus group discussions held by department chairs from across the university revealed great

diversity in how someone at FIU becomes the chair of a department, the resources and support available to individual

chairs, and the level of discretion chairs have in decision making. The differences between department sizes and make-

ups were also topics of conversation. Further, discipline related differences were noted. For example, chairs in the

physical sciences may well be responsible for obtaining, maintaining, and eventually replacing expensive equipment.

Specifically, focus group attendees varied widely as to:

Department size. Chairing a five member department may well be different from chairing a 20+ member

department.

Department make-up. Chairing a department with mostly junior level faculty may well be different from

chairing a department with a more evenly distributed faculty levels.

Length of term and related salary differentials (i.e., 9 or 12 month assignments.)

Degree of faculty input into appointments. Chairs who are elected by their faculty may have a different

relationship with both department faculty and dean than chairs who are appointed by their dean.

Degree of discretion they have in decision making (e.g., budget, spending, and faculty evaluation.)

Level of support with administrative tasks

(a) Number and competence levels of staff

(b) Level of faculty participation in administrative tasks

(c) Availability of resources (e.g., funding, chair’s time)

Focus group discussions also revealed that on the whole, attending chairs were not very knowledgeable about

the situations of chairs in colleges and schools outside of their own. This includes being familiar with the way other

chairs maximize their effectiveness. There were many times during the focus groups when one chair would explain

how his or her department structure, procedure, or policy helped solve a problem voiced by another attendee. Others

shared such information garnered at their previous institutions. Overall, attendees appeared to find this a valuable, if

unintended aspect of these focus groups.

There was much talk about the levels of authority and resources necessary to carry out the typical

responsibilities of chairs. Further, it should be noted that many of the concerns raised about factors that hindered the

ability of attending chairs to be the effective administrators and leaders they envisioned themselves to be, were

ultimately connected to things outside of their departments. At both sessions some of the barriers were identified as

being related to university infrastructure and beyond, to the university’s funding. For some attendees there were

additional college or school related barriers.

Finally, it may be said that chairs attending the focus groups expressed a desire for more structurally

supported sharing of institutionally relevant information to help them be better administrators. And just as importantly,

more administrative support to help them be better leaders.

What follows are comments from both of the focus group meetings, arranged under the committee’s

questions. The questions appear in all capital letters. The responses noted below each question are based on the notes

taken at the sessions by Sarah Latham, and by Linda Bliss who also grouped and edited the comments for continuity.

Comments from both sessions are thus integrated. The job description addressed in the final questions had been sent to

focus group attendees prior to the sessions.

WHAT DISTINGUISHES AN EXCELLENT CHAIR FROM A GOOD CHAIR?

An excellent chair is patient and empathetic

Knows when to listen and when to step back (e.g., Not using “reply” to an e-mail immediately)

Excellent chairs keep the peace.

Excellent chairs advance their department to prepare students and lead in their discipline (programmatic

visionary)

An excellent chair advocates the needs of faculty, a leader in academic programs areas and advances

students.

28

An excellent chair is a leader in terms of faculty research, provides a model of teaching and helps students.

An excellent chair has honed people skills to deal with faculty – smooth relationships are a key features as

chairs are caught in the middle. Chairs are not really administrators and not really faculty but they will be

faculty again (which is why you can’t be a dictator)

An excellent chair builds and organizational culture for their department with a certain cohesiveness in their

faculty. They have diplomacy skills.

(Other responses)

Show me an excellent chair. Chairs are squashed between the Dean and the faculty.

This is better answered by others. Faculty think that an excellent chair wins their battles. Deans think

excellent chairs follow their demands.

This is a question of an ideal vs. an excellent chair.

WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT JOB ACTIVITIES YOU PERFORM?

Chairs don’t get to the important things. Our time is spent simply keeping everything running (e.g., I spent

all day learning the new ADP Payroll system.) The big picture items don’t get done but these are what chairs

should do.

Chairs are important to create a vision,

to keep accreditation, for the evaluation and quality of teaching and the curriculum. Your faculty are all you

have for accreditation but you have no resources to reward them.

I spend 40 – 50% scheduling (assignment and scheduling), but should spend more time on evaluations, since

they drive everything else.

Evaluations of faculty teaching assignments (in other departments they have committees)

One chair breaks it down as:

20% evaluations

10% teaching assignments

20% schedule

15% search and screen committee (and looking for space for the new people)

20% staff problems

15% working with committees and faculty ranking

Another as:

25% evaluating faculty, merit

20% budget decisions/adjuncts

15% scheduling

10% hiring superior staff

10% committees

10% data analysis for more resources (money)

Solving low level vexing problems - “fighting fires”

Trying to keep faculty from leaving FIU

Hiring, keeping, guiding, supporting faculty

Making promising faculty feel appreciated (e.g., salary adjustments, travel money)

Providing guidance to non-performing faculty (moving on)

Dealing with faculty failure/turnover – vacated department lines are up for grabs

Dealing with tenure takes a huge amount of my time

Constantly balancing interests

29

Dealing with repairing/replacing expensive essential equipment

HOW DID YOU DESCRIBE WHAT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT?

Time spent on the task

You take care of the fires that flare up first.

WHAT ARE YOUR THREE BIGGEST PRIORITIES FOR IMPROVING THE STANDING OF OR THE QUALITY

OF YOUR DEPARTMENT?

Get more faculty: Too few faculty to teach the many majors

Getting salary adjustments: Salary compression/inversion

Raising morale: Morale problems (maybe a function of tenure – dissatisfied tenured faculty could leave but

need to give up tenure so they resent salary compression and inversion) Connected to priority of getting

more resources & enhancing ability to make decisions.

Getting outside resources

Getting more resources for FIU: Resource problem goes beyond the College/University – the State needs to

provide money for faculty who are doing a good job, productive faculty

HOW WERE YOU PREPARED, TRAINED OR ILLUMINATED ABOUT THE JOB RELATED ACTIVITIES

AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHAIRS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT, COLLEGE AND AT FIU?

Nothing was done

Being program director of graduate programs, observing previous chairs but no formal preparation

Being a Director and sitting in on council of chairs meetings

Being in the Provost’s office for seven years at Arizona State

Howie in the Hills (brought up in both focus groups)

o This was enjoyable but not particularly useful

The department secretaries taught me at first, especially about the expectations of others and the mechanics

From the previous chair – bugging him for help. Small help from the Dean’s workshop. No real helpful

help.

Served as acting chair in between other chairs

CBA has group of 8 for mentoring

College has a two day introduction at beginning of fall semester, was useful and met others.

PRIOR TO ASSUMING THE CHAIR, WHAT KIND OF INFORMATION, TRAINING OR BRIEFINGS WOULD

HAVE BEEN HELPFUL FOR PREPARING YOU TO ASSUME THE POSITION

Having two people to call on (other chairs)

Having a group for advice

It would have been helpful for each new incoming chair to have a group of veteran chairs take them through

10 case studies that would be very likely to occur. Typical issues like budget, grievances, tenure/promotion

with REAL cases with institutional problems from FIU

Effective training including concrete problems

i.e., help in learning to be responsible for staff

Good training

30

It would have been helpful to work as an assistant/deputy chair as heir apparent to learn (even if this means

more work for the chair)

One chair has done this in his department, an Assistant Chair position is now established

A well structured mentoring system (new faculty get mentors but not chairs!?). Tell us to balance our time

wisely, help us prioritize our new roles and responsibilities.

IF YOU COULD RECEIVE ADDITIONAL TRAINING NOW THAT YOU ARE A CHAIR, WHAT WOULD IT BE

AND HOW WOULD IT BENEFIT YOU, YOUR DEPARTMENT OR THE UNIVERSITY?

NO TRAINING!!

Never mastered PantherSoft financials - it’s “non-intuitive”

Send trainers to chairs rather than have them going to PantherSoft trainings so that training can be specific to

my needs

WHAT HAS HELPED YOU MOST IN PERFORMING WELL AS CHAIR?

Having the confidence of the Dean, and the faculty knowing that I have that confidence, and vice versa

My election as chair gives me legitimacy when speaking to the Dean

Having help with administrative work (staff &/or faculty, individual &/or committee)

For example: Committees to do specific tasks (i.e. personnel committee reviewing and advising chairs on

evaluations and merit pay). Personnel committee is given the chair’s rating and they review and make

suggestions. Consensus of chair and committee rather than solely on chair so the chair is not perceived as

biased. The committee rotates on and off every year with a two year assignment (volunteer basis first, but

everyone must spend the same amount of time on the committee).

I have a one year arrangement with a faculty member to act as a co-chair so I can travel. The other faculty

member is paid for out of the Professional Association NOT the college.

Co-Chairs are future trained chairs!

Different faculty have individual specialized administrative tasks (give them a course release for this?)

Coordinators, who are given releases

We replaced one secretary in each department with a coordinator, like an administrative assistant that has a

master’s degree.

Having an independent budget – lubricant of money on squeaky wheels

Being given discretion over our own spending and budget.

WHAT HAS HINDERED YOU MOST IN PERFORMING WELL IN YOUR JOB AS CHAIR?

The system is set up for failure, not success. The system is “set up for chairs to fail”

It doesn’t facilitate success. Any success is hard work, you’re on your own, and it’s done at the expense of

your research and/or your family and “personal time”. Evaluation needs to be adjusted to lessen the research

and teaching load.

Administration is not looked at all for promotion.

The level of infrastructure we have to go through to deal with issues. Not all chairs enter the role with

administrative experience. They don’t know how to effectively manage what arises and they don’t have the

personnel to help the chair.

We are scientists thrown into this scenario, not experts and don’t know the law (referring to termination of

non performing staff member)

31

Levels of bureaucracy difficulty dealing with non performing employees

Lack of help from University HR in personnel decisions - significant staffing problems (i.e., not enough staff

&/or staff with attendance or competency problems)

Staffing issues – can’t hire temps and we have non dependable secondary staff. There is no provision for

hiring a temp in HR.

My department has 13 faculty and one mediocre secretary. In my two years of chair, my secretary has been

out for four months on medical leave. Also, there are vast differences in staffing for each different

department. We need higher level personnel that can handle stuff the chairs run around doing.

We have only two secretaries for 15 faculty, 10 adjuncts and 4 programs.

Structure of department. Can’t delegate without having an adequate mature departmental structure (e.g., with

an administrative assistant).

Departments with new faculty predominantly and small departments don’t have the ability to have co-chairs

Being seen too much as the Dean’s person you lose faculty and vice versa. Constant balancing.

Dean’s staff not busy – too many staff and they end up looking around for things to do and get involved in

faculty decisions and get in the way

The Dean’s offices have too much staff, while departments don’t have enough staff. They should allow

swapping when needed.

Not having resources adequate to solve problems that arise. Problems bounced up for small amounts of

money. Need more authority and resources at the department level to solve trivial problems. (and non-trivial

ones. Agreement that this is very important)

Chairs need more (space and funding) resources and authority to carry out responsibilities.

Administrative assistants/administrative assistance needed

Lack of control of our own budget – micromanaged (Agreement that this is very important)

MONEY, there is so little, we may have discretion over it but the budget is not big enough to do anything.

There is no incentive to encourage faculty to do more research because there is no money.

Online classes are not generating the money that they should. Ability to access funds generated from on-line

courses does not appear to be uniform. No salary release (generated by faculty on research)

Amount of paperwork

Being given no notice on last minute priority tasks.

There were so many new changes in one year with no help.

ADP, PantherSoft all these new systems, scheduling

System’s trainings were not helpful

The wrong idea. We want vision and strategic planning but our job is consumed with mechanistic roles.

Important issues are dropped because other responsibilities take all your time. Juggling the interests of the

department and day to day stuff makes all this secondary.

A chair’s ideal role is to facilitate, to provide leadership to faculty and grade students but instead we deal

with day to day stuff. 20% of faculty waste 80% of your time. The rest of your time is taken up by students

complaining about these faculty! Also, a lack of control and money.

No consideration by the administration. We are paid for 9 months but do more work. They dump trivial

matters on chairs, and give important stuff to deans.

32

Clear differences between schools being 12 months and have teaching releases vs. 9 months and nothing. (the

9 month type of assignment is a hindrance)

Our day is filled with the same issues. All we can do is hope that nothing drops because it all falls to you.

Insanity is responsibility with no power. This is also a description of the job of chair.

We are responsible for so much, we’re really a conduit and it all flows through you, yet the control and the

leadership is not in your (the chair’s) office. (Conduit image came up in both focus groups.)

FIU Model – Keep the top very heavy (how many VPs now?) No support at chair level and Dean’s offices

are getting very heavy.

*Recommendations:

Designate a faculty member as an associate chair (to do things such as learning outcomes assessment and act

as chief advisor) and give them one course release and a .20 for summer. -Each faculty member should have

some administrative responsibility.

Chairs need designated person for their absences.

o Provost has plenty of support to leave, while chairs can’t

WHAT TASKS DO YOU CURRENTLY HAVE THAT COULD BETTER BE PERFORMED BY SOMEONE

ELSE?

Advising

Advising, which has already been removed from the chairs’ plates in CBA

Time cards (new ADP) approval

No time for these mechanical issues

We need people to deal with financials and be responsible for budget (chair not qualified, you need

specialists)

Minor scheduling issues

All scheduling – the hassle of getting the schedule in and corrected (finding and fixing errors).

Personnel issues, record keeping, paperwork

Learning outcomes assessment

Learning compacts for the SACS accreditation are the worst thing we do

o And they’re expanding up to the University core courses (every single section) Have to follow that

format

WHAT ARE THE SIGNIFICANT MOTIVATIONS FOR BECOMING A CHAIR AT FIU?

Guilt from colleagues (full professor/tenured so you need less time to do research)

Fell into it, people unable, they don’t want it, they’re too young, and you’re the only person left.

No one seeks the position, don’t want to lose their research agenda

Salary boost before retiring

The chance to fix issues

Opportunity to engage in problem solving, helping shape the department’s direction, especially in hiring.

WHAT MAJOR NEW RESPONSIBILITIES COULD CHAIRS ASSUME TO IMPROVE THE PERFORMANCE OF

DEPARTMENTS AT FIU?

33

Give up some of our administrative duties or other things and then we can assume more leadership and

visionary issues.

DO YOU THINK THAT [THE ATTACHED] JOB DESCRIPTION CAPTURES THE ACTIVITIES YOU

PERFORM AS CHAIR?

It’s a weak chair model

o weak/indecisive language

o more focus on authority

i.e., faculty assignments scheduling language is poor (don’t use the

word coordinate)

o use language to support the chair

Its all administrative, not leadership - language

Accurately describes what we do but not how we do it

Compare and improve upon it with the chair’s guides

In chair’s handbook, a responsibility is assigning research labs/space assignments. Make this clear

Doesn’t describe the core function of what I do. I’m elected and I represent my constituency to Deans

and the Administration. Elected democratically, I must build consensus.

o Representation as well as management/administration functioning of dean/provost AND

represent faculty

o Need a conceptual model for elected vs. appointed chairs.

o Appointed chairs still represent the interest of the faculty and report the Dean’s decisions.

o Nuances about different ways chairs appointed in Arts and Sciences, all chairs are elected.

Political aspects of chairs not represented

Chairs are a conduit between below and above – conflicts clash in their offices

o Address how people become chairs to carry with it lines of authority

Chair is ultimate responsible for all committees

“Makes final hiring decision” this language is too hard – the decision is made by faculty

Every department is different. Less is more because of differences in department/college functions.

Reduce to one page.

Less detailed, more concise basic functions

o Evaluations

o Schedule

o Faculty assessment

o Budget

o Recruiting

o Tenure/Promotion

o Research leadership

o Helping junior faculty and grad students

ARE THERE MISSING ITEMS [FROM THE ATTACHED JOB DESCRIPTION]?

Maintaining and improving morale

Small issues that we would only need a little money and a little authority rather than multiple layers of

bureaucracy.

OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE FOCUS GROUPS:

In Arts and Sciences while someone is chair, the Dean doesn’t care about research.

34

But for future, chairs still need the research for when you’re no longer chair.

Associate Professors probably shouldn’t become chairs – Can’t be promoted because of lack of research and

teaching.

Administration above rank of chair, after stepping down all get one year paid sabbatical to research but not

chairs, and its needed (chair for six years, there will be no research in progress)

No negotiation when I became chair (i.e., how long, what happens when you step down)

All negotiated, no uniformity (e.g., whether administrative supplement becomes part of base salary) leads to

inequities in salary among chairs.

Equitable pay should be given for the same work. Need more equitable benefits package across the

university and within colleges. Chair pay does not appear to be equitable now.

Infrastructure maturity is needed in organization (especially managerial). FIU rapid growth not handled as

well as it might have been. (Came up in both focus groups)

35

APPENDIX C

SURVEY INSTRUMENT

Instructions for FIU Department Chair Survey

Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. We hope that the results will

benefit you and future chairpersons. The survey is lengthy because as you know, the

department chair has complex, wide-ranging duties. In many cases, the authors of the

survey asked about more than one task or responsibility in a single survey item. To have

done otherwise would have doubled the length of the survey.

We ask that you rate each item in three ways: (1) what priority do you assign to the task?

(2) how much time do you invest in the task? and (3) how much guidance do you have in

performing the task?

To respond to each item, we have provided pull down menus based on five-point scales

for task priority, time spent and available guidance. Please use these pull downs to enter

your responses.

We realize that particular tasks sometimes have a higher priority than others at particular

points in time (e.g., accreditation or recruitment); to deal with this problem, we ask that

your responses reflect a time span of several years. If you perform only part of a

particular task, you can adjust your responses accordingly. In addition, text boxes after

each section allow you to clarify your responses.

The text boxes also offer the opportunity for you to indicate tasks that the survey does not

include, tasks that might be described differently, or tasks that might need special

notation. We welcome any other comments that you might have regarding the chair’s

duties or the survey itself.

The survey is important for you and your peers across the University! Please do what you

can to help us collect accurate, complete and detailed information.

Thank you.

The actual Chair Survey can be accessed at:

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=fpSBlHa66rSKX0Q401tN7w_3d_3d

36

37

Appendix D

RESULTS OF SURVEY OF FIU DEPARTMENT CHAIRS Table 1. Descriptive Information on Survey Sample

N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation

Years of Experience as Chair 31 0 10 3.65 2.371

How Many Courses Taught Fall-Spring 24 1 10 2.98 2.823

N of Administrators Supporting 16 0 4 1.75 1.528

N of Faculty in Dept 38 2 40 16.90 9.792

N Adjuncts Used Per Term 37 0 50 13.27 12.382

Percentage of Adjuncts in Courses 20 3 80 33.80 25.771

N Courses Offered Per Term 29 0 175 51.90 44.552

N Students in Dept Major(s) 32 0 2300 541.28 631.116

N Staff Supporting Dept 35 1 14 3.41 3.056

Table 2. Type of Appointment

Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative

Percent

Valid Chair 34 77.3 82.9 82.9

Director 6 13.6 14.6 97.6

Dean 1 2.3 2.4 100.0

Total 41 93.2 100.0

Missing System 3 6.8

Total 44 100.0

38

1

6

34

3

Dean

Director

Chair

Missing

Chair or

Director?

Figure 1. Title of Position

12

15

14

3

Approved by Faculty

To Be Appointed

Elected

Appointed

Missing

Appointed or Elected?

Figure 2. How Selected Into Position

29

11

4

Figue 3. Nine or Twelve Month Appontment

12 Month Appointment

9 Month Appointment

Missing

9 or 12 Month

Appointment?

39

Table 3. Survey Results on Priority of Tasks and Functions

Priority of Tasks ( means descending)

N Min Max Mean SD

15. Assess and create meaningful annual evaluation of faculty performance based on regular monitoring.

42 3 5 4.52 .707

3. Creates a positive faculty climate for research productivity, teaching excellence and faculty engagement. Recognize faculty accomplishments. Remove roadblocks to faculty endeavors by identifying available resources, providing incentives, supporting programs

44 3 5 4.50 .731

31. Serves as conduit between faculty and administration by representing faculty to administration and representing the administration to faculty members. Engages in regular communications with faculty and administrators keeping each apprised of new information

43 1 5 4.42 .823

17. Support the goals and procedures of the promotion and tenure process. Write letters of support/non-support with attention to legal issues and accuracy.

43 1 5 4.37 .926

8. Provide leadership through creating vision for the advancement of the Department, following though with implementation. Serves as a model for faculty and staff with regard to enthusiasm, values and achievement.

43 3 5 4.37 .655

6. Build consensus, trust and cohesiveness within the Department on goals, objectives and strategies. 43 2 5 4.37 .846

45. Create and establish the course schedule and hold final authority on scheduling matters and faculty teaching assignments for all Departmental courses. Schedules courses to fulfill faculty teaching loads, minimize conflicts and maximize enrollment opportunities

42 1 5 4.33 .874

58. Ensure that the Department is meeting all accreditation standards and that quality is met in all curricular offerings in that Department. Complete or delegate creation of necessary accreditation reports. Oversee assurance of learning process and learning compacts

41 1 5 4.27 1.025

20. Teach courses, seek to publish research and serve as a model for faculty with regard to teaching excellence and research productivity 42 3 5 4.26 .734

12. Recruit faculty members. Provide guidance and facilitates the work of search committees. 43 1 5 4.26 .819

34. Reconcile conflicts and make determinations based on sound reasoning, fairness, ethical considerations and the best interests of the unit and pursue that channel of action 43 2 5 4.23 .868

44. Implement and follow up on short and long-range Department programs, plans, and goals. 43 1 5 4.21 .940

40

5.Conduct regular Department meetings. Keeps faculty members informed of Department, College, and institutional plans, activities, and expectations. 41 2 5 4.20 .813

32. Provide Dean with critical information through formal reports and informal communication. Confer with the Dean on faculty recruitment, leaves and sabbaticals, and other areas as requested by the Dean's office

43 2 5 4.16 .814

19. Adhere to ethical principles and use reasoned judgment. Follow procedures as set forth in the Faculty Handbook, FIU Policies and Procedures Manual, College Policies and Procedures Manual and the union contract

43 2 5 4.14 .941

59. Review programs and make recommendations for change to curricula. Identify and/or evaluate/approve new program proposals. Sign off on all Departmental course and other curricular changes.

43 1 5 4.12 1.005

46. Review Panthersoft schedule of courses, identify errors in schedule and classroom assignments and take necessary actions; resolve scheduling problems. 43 1 5 4.09 1.019

33. Attempt to protect faculty and administration from encroachment upon their rights and best interests. 43 2 5 4.00 1.113

18. Make final hiring decisions for the Department. 43 1 5 3.91 1.250

22. Handle individual student problems that are referred to the Chair. Attempt to resolve student problems or complaints following procedures as set forth in the Student Handbook 43 1 5 3.86 1.082

47. Work with college administrators and committees to secure and monitor Departmental resources. Communicate with the Dean’s office on inventories and security. 43 1 5 3.79 1.081

13. Foster the development of each faculty member’s special talents and interests. 43 2 5 3.79 1.059

9. Ensure that new faculty and adjunct faculty receive a formal briefing of their duties and responsibilities. 43 2 5 3.77 .782

35. Establish a process for continuity and succession of departmental programs, functions and vision across changes in available personnel 42 1 5 3.76 1.078

57. Approves payroll using ADP system. 41 1 5 3.73 1.361

16. Monitor adherence to policies in order to take actions that assure the smooth running of the Department on a day-to-day basis 43 1 5 3.65 1.131

60. Processes Department correspondence and requests for information. Prepares and reviews offer letters. Responds to emails and phone calls. 42 1 5 3.64 .932

1. Meet with each faculty member prior to the beginning of the academic year concerning their professional development plans. Provide direction with regard to faculty teaching, research and service assignments

44 1 5 3.64 1.163

23. Plan, implement and evaluate recruitment and retention of students programs. 43 1 5 3.63 1.176

30. Develop a shared vision with the College. Disseminate and follow though on implementing FIU and College vision, plan and strategies. 44 1 5 3.57 1.246

41. Acquires information about activities in the profession, around the University and the College so as to keep abreast of opportunities and provide faculty with current relevant information. Obtains and disseminates information about policy, curricular

42 1 5 3.52 .994

41

39. Maintain involvement in academic professional organizations appropriate to the Department 41 2 5 3.51 .978

52. Review, approve and sign contracts for teaching and other services. Evaluate and make determinations on space utilization (offices, storage, labs, etc.) 42 1 5 3.50 1.018

48. Once Departmental budgets are assigned, advise the Dean if additional funding becomes necessary during the year. 43 1 5 3.49 1.298

56. Maintain essential Department records, including student records. Review Panthersoft Student Records 43 1 5 3.47 1.120

21. Identify programs and opportunities for students. Encourage students in the Department to take opportunities such as specific programs, courses, internships or external competitions 43 1 5 3.47 1.141

53. Review, approve and sign contracts for teaching and other services. Make determinations on space utilization (offices, storage, labs, etc.) 38 1 5 3.45 1.132

27. Monitor student forms and processes. Respond to any specific student requests regarding graduation requirements and sign graduation files. 43 1 5 3.42 1.332

26. Monitor and support those who advise students, including orientation functions. Advise students directly as necessary. 43 1 5 3.42 1.074

7. Ensure that faculty are familiar with university, college and Department policies and procedures. Provides leadership on issues related to diversity, sexual harassment, and equality 43 2 5 3.42 .852

14. Plan for use of adjuncts. 43 1 5 3.42 .906

4. Form and monitor Department committees 43 1 5 3.42 1.139

50. Maintain records of Department expenditures, transfers and encumbrances using Panthersoft Financials. 42 1 5 3.40 1.170

40. Initiates and maintains liaisons with other areas of the College and University, external agencies and other organizations, firms or institutions. 43 1 5 3.37 1.024

2. Oversee mentoring of junior faculty by senior faculty, assigned by the Chair. 44 1 5 3.34 1.055

51. Approve requests for expenditures including travel and physical resources. 42 1 5 3.33 1.097

42. Attend a broad spectrum of events including commencements, local, national and international conferences, student activities and professional organizations. 43 1 5 3.33 1.248

61. Gathers and analyzes a wide variety of data to produce reports and make decisions. Reviews and analyzes data obtained from Panthersoft, and IR data on enrollment, retention, admission, etc. 43 1 5 3.28 1.098

43. Submit to the Dean prior to the beginning of each academic year a Department activities plan for that academic year, including specific objectives to be met, any unusual resources needed, 42 1 5 3.24 1.411

10. Supervise the clerical and technical staff in the Department. Evaluate the clerical and technical staff in the Department. 43 1 5 3.23 1.088

55. Oversee the completion and signing of forms, surveys, grade rolls. 40 1 5 3.20 1.265

29. Assigns graduate assistants to faculty, courses and/or departmental tasks. 43 1 5 3.16 1.290

28. Make recommendations on the appointment of graduate assistants to the Dean or Associate Dean. 43 1 5 3.05 1.253

42

11. Chair (or designee) assigns faculty advisors to graduate students once they have been admitted. 42 1 5 3.00 1.307

49. Recommend technology, information and equipment acquisitions and usage. 43 1 5 2.98 .963

36. Coordinate activities with advisory groups associated with the Department. 42 1 5 2.93 1.295

24. Facilitate internships appropriate to the Department. 42 1 5 2.74 1.251

37. Support programs and services of the honorary societies, the alumni, and assist with the alumni fund-raising.

43 1 5 2.65 1.110

54. Establish security and emergency policies and procedures for the department 41 1 5 2.63 1.135

38. Ensure that a working list of available internships is available and that each is a quality experience for the student

42 1 5 2.60 1.308

25. Coordinate with Career Planning and Placement to arrange interviewing and resume workshops. Oversee the career advisement and schedule preparation of all students

42 1 5 2.43 1.309

43

Table 4. Survey Results on Time Spent on Tasks and Functions

Time Spent on Tasks (means descending)

N Min Max Mean SD

45. Create and establish the course schedule and hold final authority on scheduling matters and faculty teaching assignments for all Departmental courses. Schedules courses to fulfill faculty teaching loads, minimize conflicts and maximize enrollment opportunities

42 1 5 4.29 .995

15. Assess and create meaningful annual evaluation of faculty performance based on regular monitoring.

41 2 5 4.00 1.000

31. Serves as conduit between faculty and administration by representing faculty to administration and representing the administration to faculty members. Engages in regular communications with faculty and administrators keeping each apprised of new information.

42 1 5 3.88 1.017

58. Ensure that the Department is meeting all accreditation standards and that quality is met in all curricular offerings in that Department. Complete or delegate creation of necessary accreditation reports. Oversee assurance of learning process and learning compacts.

41 1 5 3.85 1.131

8. Provide leadership through creating vision for the advancement of the Department, following though with implementation. Serves as a model for faculty and staff with regard to enthusiasm, values and achievement.

43 2 5 3.84 .924

46. Review Panthersoft schedule of courses, identify errors in schedule and classroom assignments and take necessary actions; resolve scheduling problems. 43 1 5 3.74 1.217

20. Teach courses, seek to publish research and serve as a model for faculty with regard to teaching excellence and research productivity 42 2 5 3.69 1.047

3. Creates a positive faculty climate for research productivity, teaching excellence and faculty engagement. Recognize faculty accomplishments. Remove roadblocks to faculty endeavors by identifying available resources, providing incentives, supporting pro

44 2 5 3.66 .939

6. Build consensus, trust and cohesiveness within the Department on goals, objectives and strategies. 43 2 5 3.65 .897

60. Processes Department correspondence and requests for information. Prepares and reviews offer letters. Responds to emails and phone calls. 42 1 5 3.64 1.186

32. Provide Dean with critical information through formal reports and informal communication. Confer with the Dean on faculty recruitment, leaves and sabbaticals, and other areas as requested by the Dean's office

42 1 5 3.62 1.035

22. Handle individual student problems that are referred to the Chair. Attempt to resolve student problems or complaints following procedures as set forth in the Student Handbook 43 2 5 3.58 .982

44

12. Recruit faculty members. Provide guidance and facilitates the work of search committees. 43 1 5 3.37 .976

5.Conduct regular Department meetings. Keeps faculty members informed of Department, College, and institutional plans, activities, and expectations. 42 2 5 3.36 .983

17. Support the goals and procedures of the promotion and tenure process. Write letters of support/non-support with attention to legal issues and accuracy. 43 1 5 3.35 1.131

34. Reconcile conflicts and make determinations based on sound reasoning, fairness, ethical considerations and the best interests of the unit and pursue that channel of action 43 1 5 3.35 1.173

59. Review programs and make recommendations for change to curricula. Identify and/or evaluate/approve new program proposals. Sign off on all Departmental course and other curricular changes.

43 1 5 3.33 1.169

44. Implement and follow up on short and long-range Department programs, plans, and goals. 43 1 5 3.33 1.149

16. Monitor adherence to policies in order to take actions that assure the smooth running of the Department on a day-to-day basis 43 1 5 3.30 1.186

14. Plan for use of adjuncts. 43 1 5 3.28 1.076

33. Attempt to protect faculty and administration from encroachment upon their rights and best interests. 42 1 5 3.21 1.200

10. Supervise the clerical and technical staff in the Department. Evaluate the clerical and technical staff in the Department. 43 1 5 3.16 1.344

61. Gathers and analyzes a wide variety of data to produce reports and make decisions. Reviews and analyzes data obtained from Panthersoft,and IR data on enrollment, retention, admission, etc. 43 1 5 3.07 1.261

18. Make final hiring decisions for the Department. 43 1 5 3.07 1.055

42. Attend a broad spectrum of events including commencements, local, national and international conferences, student activities and professional organizations. 43 1 5 3.05 .999

19. Adhere to ethical principles and use reasoned judgment. Follow procedures as set forth in the Faculty Handbook, FIU Policies and Procedures Manual, College Policies and Procedures Manual and the union contract

43 2 5 3.02 .886

47. Work with college administrators and committees to secure and monitor Departmental resources. Communicate with the Dean’s office on inventories and security. 43 1 5 3.02 1.058

26. Monitor and support those who advise students, including orientation functions. Advise students directly as necessary. 43 1 5 3.00 1.215

13. Foster the development of each faculty member’s special talents and interests. 43 1 5 2.93 .985

30. Develop a shared vision with the College. Disseminate and follow though on implementing FIU and College vision, plan and strategies. 44 1 5 2.89 1.205

23. Plan, implement and evaluate recruitment and retention of students programs. 43 1 5 2.86 1.167

35. Establish a process for continuity and succession of departmental programs, functions and vision across changes in available personnel 42 1 5 2.81 1.174

45

40. Initiates and maintains liaisons with other areas of the College and University, external agencies and other organizations, firms or institutions. 43 1 4 2.79 .965

1. Meet with each faculty member prior to the beginning of the academic year concerning their professional development plans. Provide direction with regard to faculty teaching, research and service assignments

43 1 5 2.74 1.071

50. Maintain records of Department expenditures, transfers and encumbrances using Panthersoft Financials. 42 1 5 2.74 1.170

27. Monitor student forms and processes. Respond to any specific student requests regarding graduation requirements and sign graduation files. 43 1 5 2.72 1.161

9. Ensure that new faculty and adjunct faculty receive a formal briefing of their duties and responsibilities. 43 1 5 2.72 .854

21. Identify programs and opportunities for students. Encourage students in the Department to take opportunities such as specific programs, courses, internships or external competitions 43 1 5 2.70 1.166

4. Form and monitor Department committees 43 1 5 2.63 1.092

41. Acquires information about activities in the profession, around the University and the College so as to keep abreast of opportunities and provide faculty with current relevant information. Obtains and disseminates information about policy, curricular

42 1 5 2.62 .987

56. Maintain essential Department records, including student records. Review Panthersoft Student Records 43 1 5 2.60 1.116

52. Review, approve and sign contracts for teaching and other services. Evaluate and make determinations on space utilization (offices, storage, labs, etc.) 42 1 4 2.60 .989

57. Approves payroll using ADP system. 41 1 5 2.59 1.360

43. Submit to the Dean prior to the beginning of each academic year a Department activities plan for that academic year, including specific objectives to be met, any unusual resources needed, 41 1 5 2.56 1.246

7. Ensure that faculty are familiar with university, college and Department policies and procedures. Provides leadership on issues related to diversity, sexual harassment, and equality 43 1 4 2.47 .767

39. Maintain involvement in academic professional organizations appropriate to the Department 41 1 5 2.46 .925

51. Approve requests for expenditures including travel and physical resources. 42 1 4 2.45 .942

53. Review, approve and sign contracts for teaching and other services.Make determinations on space utilization (offices, storage, labs, etc.) 38 1 4 2.39 .790

55. Oversee the completion and signing of forms, surveys, grade rolls. 40 1 4 2.38 .838

48. Once Departmental budgets are assigned, advise the Dean if additional funding becomes necessary during the year. 43 1 5 2.35 1.110

2. Oversee mentoring of junior faculty by senior faculty, assigned by the Chair. 43 1 4 2.30 .803

49. Recommend technology, information and equipment acquisitions and usage. 43 1 4 2.28 .701

36. Coordinate activities with advisory groups associated with the Department. 42 1 5 2.26 1.251

29. Assigns graduate assistants to faculty, courses and/or departmental tasks. 43 1 5 2.14 1.125

46

28. Make recommendations on the appointment of graduate assistants to the Dean or Associate Dean. 43 1 5 2.12 1.074

24. Facilitate internships appropriate to the Department. 42 1 4 2.10 .932

11. Chair (or designee) assigns faculty advisors to graduate students once they have been admitted.

42 1 4 2.10 .983

37. Support programs and services of the honorary societies, the alumni, and assist with the alumni fund-raising.

43 1 4 2.02 .859

25. Coordinate with Career Planning and Placement to arrange interviewing and resume workshops. Oversee the career advisement and schedule preparation of all students

42 1 5 1.98 1.115

38. Ensure that a working list of available internships is available and that each is a quality experience for the student

42 1 4 1.83 .853

54. Establish security and emergency policies and procedures for the department 41 1 3 1.78 .613

47

Table 5. Survey Results on Guidance Available for Tasks and Functions

Guidance Available (means descending)

N Min Max Mean SD

19. Adhere to ethical principles and use reasoned judgment. Follow procedures as set forth in the Faculty Handbook, FIU Policies and Procedures Manual, College Policies and Procedures Manual and the union contract

43 1 5 2.95 1.068

58. Ensure that the Department is meeting all accreditation standards and that quality is met in all curricular offerings in that Department. Complete or delegate creation of necessary accreditation reports. Oversee assurance of learning process and learning compacts.

39 1 5 2.95 1.025

27. Monitor student forms and processes. Respond to any specific student requests regarding graduation requirements and sign graduation files.

43 1 5 2.84 1.194

57. Approves payroll using ADP system. 40 1 5 2.78 1.143

17. Support the goals and procedures of the promotion and tenure process. Write letters of support/non-support with attention to legal issues and accuracy.

43 1 5 2.77 1.109

59. Review programs and make recommendations for change to curricula. Identify and/or evaluate/approve new program proposals. Sign off on all Departmental course and other curricular changes.

42 1 5 2.76 .983

12. Recruit faculty members. Provide guidance and facilitates the work of search committees. 43 1 5 2.74 1.002

22. Handle individual student problems that are referred to the Chair. Attempt to resolve student problems or complaints following procedures as set forth in the Student Handbook 43 1 5 2.74 1.071

51. Approve requests for expenditures including travel and physical resources. 41 1 5 2.66 1.109

32. Provide Dean with critical information through formal reports and informal communication. Confer with the Dean on faculty recruitment, leaves and sabbaticals, and other areas as requested by the Dean's office

42 1 5 2.64 1.055

45. Create and establish the course schedule and hold final authority on scheduling matters and faculty teaching assignments for all Departmental courses. Schedules courses to fulfill faculty teaching loads, minimize conflicts and maximize enrollment oppo

42 1 5 2.62 1.268

46. Review Panthersoft schedule of courses, identify errors in schedule and classroom assignments and take necessary actions; resolve scheduling problems. 43 1 5 2.60 1.178

48

31. Serves as conduit between faculty and administration by representing faculty to administration and representing the administration to faculty members. Engages in regular communications with faculty and administrators keeping each apprised of new infor

42 1 5 2.60 1.083

55. Oversee the completion and signing of forms, surveys, grade rolls. 39 1 5 2.59 1.019

15. Assess and create meaningful annual evaluation of faculty performance based on regular monitoring. 42 1 5 2.57 1.172

18. Make final hiring decisions for the Department. 43 1 5 2.56 1.119

26. Monitor and support those who advise students, including orientation functions. Advise students directly as necessary. 43 1 5 2.51 1.121

54. Establish security and emergency policies and procedures for the department 41 1 5 2.46 1.002

56. Maintain essential Department records, including student records. Review Panthersoft Student Records 42 1 5 2.45 1.064

30. Develop a shared vision with the College. Disseminate and follow though on implementing FIU and College vision, plan and strategies. 44 1 5 2.43 1.065

47. Work with college administrators and committees to secure and monitor Departmental resources. Communicate with the Dean’s office on inventories and security. 42 1 5 2.38 1.268

49. Recommend technology, information and equipment acquisitions and usage. 42 1 5 2.36 1.100

42. Attend a broad spectrum of events including commencements, local, national and international conferences, student activities and professional organizations. 43 1 4 2.35 .923

7. Ensure that faculty are familiar with university, college and Department policies and procedures. Provides leadership on issues related to diversity, sexual harassment, and equality 43 1 5 2.35 .973

60. Processes Department correspondence and requests for information. Prepares and reviews offer letters. Responds to emails and phone calls. 41 1 4 2.32 .879

34. Reconcile conflicts and make determinations based on sound reasoning, fairness, ethical considerations and the best interests of the unit and pursue that channel of action 42 1 5 2.31 1.000

9. Ensure that new faculty and adjunct faculty receive a formal briefing of their duties and responsibilities. 43 1 4 2.28 1.008

28. Make recommendations on the appointment of graduate assistants to the Dean or Associate Dean. 43 1 5 2.28 1.221

20. Teach courses, seek to publish research and serve as a model for faculty with regard to teaching excellence and research productivity 42 1 5 2.26 1.083

53. Review, approve and sign contracts for teaching and other services. Make determinations on space utilization (offices, storage, labs, etc.) 37 1 5 2.22 1.058

29. Assigns graduate assistants to faculty, courses and/or departmental tasks. 43 1 5 2.21 1.125

48. Once Departmental budgets are assigned, advise the Dean if additional funding becomes necessary during the year. 41 1 5 2.20 1.209

50. Maintain records of Department expenditures, transfers and encumbrances using Panthersoft Financials. 41 1 5 2.17 1.070

49

23. Plan, implement and evaluate recruitment and retention of students programs. 43 1 4 2.14 1.060

52. Review, approve and sign contracts for teaching and other services. Evaluate and make determinations on space utilization (offices, storage, labs, etc.) 41 1 5 2.12 1.187

61. Gathers and analyzes a wide variety of data to produce reports and make decisions. Reviews and analyzes data obtained from Panthersoft,and IR data on enrollment, retention, admission, etc. 42 1 5 2.10 1.144

41. Acquires information about activities in the profession, around the University and the College so as to keep abreast of opportunities and provide faculty with current relevant information. Obtains and disseminates information about policy, curricular

41 1 4 2.07 1.034

16. Monitor adherence to policies in order to take actions that assure the smooth running of the Department on a day-to-day basis 43 1 5 2.07 .985

5.Conduct regular Department meetings. Keeps faculty members informed of Department, College, and institutional plans, activities, and expectations. 42 1 3 2.05 .795

21. Identify programs and opportunities for students. Encourage students in the Department to take opportunities such as specific programs, courses, internships or external competitions 43 1 4 2.05 1.045

3. Creates a positive faculty climate for research productivity, teaching excellence and faculty engagement. Recognize faculty accomplishments. Remove roadblocks to faculty endeavors by identifying available resources, providing incentives, supporting pro

44 1 4 2.02 1.000

11. Chair (or designee) assigns faculty advisors to graduate students once they have been admitted. 41 1 5 2.00 1.162

8. Provide leadership through creating vision for the advancement of the Department, following though with implementation. Serves as a model for faculty and staff with regard to enthusiasm, values and achievement.

43 1 4 1.98 .938

33. Attempt to protect faculty and administration from encroachment upon their rights and best interests. 42 1 4 1.98 1.047

44. Implement and follow up on short and long-range Department programs, plans, and goals. 42 1 4 1.95 .854

24. Facilitate internships appropriate to the Department. 41 1 5 1.90 1.068

10. Supervise the clerical and technical staff in the Department. Evaluate the clerical and technical staff in the Department. 43 1 4 1.88 1.005

39. Maintain involvement in academic professional organizations appropriate to the Department 40 1 4 1.88 .911

6. Build consensus, trust and cohesiveness within the Department on goals, objectives and strategies. 43 1 3 1.84 .814

43. Submit to the Dean prior to the beginning of each academic year a Department activities plan for that academic year, including specific objectives to be met, any unusual resources needed, 42 1 5 1.83 1.146

35. Establish a process for continuity and succession of departmental programs, functions and vision across changes in available personnel 42 1 4 1.83 .986

13. Foster the development of each faculty member’s special talents and interests. 42 1 4 1.83 .935

25. Coordinate with Career Planning and Placement to arrange interviewing and resume workshops. Oversee the career advisement and schedule preparation of all students 40 1 3 1.83 .874

50

14. Plan for use of adjuncts. 43 1 4 1.81 .906

38. Ensure that a working list of available internships is available and that each is a quality experience for the student 41 1 4 1.80 .980

37. Support programs and services of the honorary societies, the alumni, and assist with the alumni fund-raising. 42 1 4 1.79 .871

40. Initiates and maintains liaisons with other areas of the College and University, external agencies and other organizations, firms or institutions.

43 1 4 1.70 .939

36. Coordinate activities with advisory groups associated with the Department. 41 1 5 1.68 1.035

4. Form and monitor Department committees 43 1 3 1.67 .808

1. Meet with each faculty member prior to the beginning of the academic year concerning their professional development plans. Provide direction with regard to faculty teaching, research and service assignments

44 1 4 1.64 .892

2. Oversee mentoring of junior faculty by senior faculty, assigned by the Chair. 44 1 3 1.59 .757

51

Table 6. Survey Results on Impact on Effectiveness of Different Obstacles

Impact on Effectiveness ( means descending)

N Min Max Mean SD

67. University infrastructure and bureaucracy. 43 2 5 4.44 .796

76. Job scope limits ability to conduct own research. 43 2 5 4.44 .854

69. Putting out fires leaves little time for concentrating on leading and visionary plans. 43 1 5 4.37 .976

65. Inadequate faculty resources. 43 2 5 4.37 .846

64. Inadequate financial resources. 43 2 5 4.26 .902

66. Inadequate staff resources and hiring policies. 43 1 5 4.12 1.005

63. Accountability without authority. 43 1 5 4.05 1.090

72. Job too big and not enough time to carry out all that is required. 43 1 5 4.02 1.080

71. Excessive paperwork and administrivia. 43 1 5 4.02 1.058

73. Lack of recognition and support by the administration for the demands of the job. 43 1 5 3.86 1.320

68. Lack of shared information across University. 43 2 5 3.63 1.001

74. Difficulty navigating political issues and balancing expectations creates role conflict. 43 1 5 3.42 1.074

75. Undermined by faculty end runs or Dean not supporting faculty decisions. 43 1 5 3.35 1.213

70. Lack of training or availability of guidance for important tasks and decisions. 43 1 5 3.21 1.103

77. Lack of formal feedback about own performance in the job. 42 1 5 3.19 1.435

52

Table 7. Correlations Among Department Size Variables

N Courses Offered

Per Term

N of Faculty in

Dept N Students in Dept Major(s)

N Staff Supporting

Dept

N of Administra-

tors Supporting

N Adjuncts Used Per

Term

N Courses Offered Per Term 1

N of Faculty in Dept .673** 1 N Students in Dept Major(s) .001 .428* 1 N Staff Supporting Dept .394* .326 .181 1

N of Administrators Supporting .016 .201 .231 -.058 1 N Adjuncts Used Per Term .696** .321 -.045 .177 .176 1 Percentage of Adjuncts in Courses .084 -.213 -.265 .169 -.339 .291

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

53

Table 8. Salary Increment Amount

Frequency Percent

Valid $0 2 6.9

$3,000 1 3.4

$4,000 1 3.4

$5,000 18 62.1

$7,000 2 6.9

$8,000 1 3.4

$10,000 3 10.3

$30,000 1 3.4

Total 29 100.0

Missing System 15

Total 44

Figure 4. Increment Rolls Into Base

54

Table 9. OPEN-ENDED COMMENTS (with any identifying content deleted)

Some Common Themes

The Dean makes the final hiring decisions - this is not a responsibility delegated to the Chair and department.

As a chair I have to do all of the above without resources and one senior secretary with high school or associate degree.

It is essential to have staff who are well trained (well paid) to take on some of the tasks.

No acknowledgment nor appreciation of all of the above efforts. Some of these challenges can be alleviated, if the department is allowed by the dean and HR to hire an appropriate staff.

I wish it were possible to focus on all these things equally and at the same time. Writing and publication for me, has gone by the board.

We definitely need more guidance on handling student grievances. Policies are not easy to find on the FIU website. This is emotionally stressful.

In these first 35 questions, I am really struck by how little I knew when I became department chair. My immediate predecessor in the job was chair for a very long time … and he did none of these things; he ran the department day-to-day--which was OK when FIU was smaller and non-research oriented, but it just does not work now.… When I became chair and took on the self-study, I knew very little about ANY of this, much less how to implement it. I had no models and very little guidance.

The quality of reports would improve if we had decent notice—e.g. to ask for a five year research plan from depts on one Friday, due the next, is ridiculous.

The FIU system boxes the chair in the room, keeps on pounding with “no” and makes sure that the chair fails. It is one of the most frustrating responsibilities with no compensation, no raise and no appreciation.

There has been little reward or recognition for work well done.

55

You've hit all the right stuff on this page.

To create and pursue a vision you need time and adequate resources.

56

57

58

Appendix F

FIU Department Chair

Job Description of Role & Responsibilities of Department Chairs

The Chair serves as the administrative and academic leader of the Department. Thus, a primary

responsibility is to build consensus within the Department on goals, objectives and strategies.

Further, the Chair serves as the primary manager and facilitator for the advancement of the interests

and reputation of the Department within the school, university and profession.

The Chair works within the framework of the school's overall program requirements to provide

general direction for the Department. The following sections describe some of the Chair’s

responsibilities in 1) Faculty & Staff Relations, 2) Student Relations, 3) Internal Relations, 4) External

Relations and 5) Program/Department Administration.

1. FACULTY & STAFF RELATIONS:

The Chair works with the faculty to ensure the smooth and harmonious functioning of the Department

through appropriate organization and assignments. As leader of the Department, Chair disseminates

vision of FIU, College and Department to faculty. Provides leadership through creating vision for the

Department and following though the implementation. Serves as a model for faculty and staff with

regard to professionalism, enthusiasm, values and achievement. Chairs meet with each faculty

member prior to the beginning of the academic year concerning their professional development plans

and their annual assignment of responsibilities. Senior faculty are encouraged to assist and mentor

junior faculty, assigned by the Chair. The Chair will be available to faculty to discuss ways of

furthering their professional and scholastic development. The Chair evaluates faculty at the end of

each academic year and forward evaluations to the Dean's office. Specific duties include:

Organizes: Works with the faculty and staff to develop organizational policies and

procedures that guide effective and equitable distribution of assignments. Forms and

monitors Department committees to accomplish Departmental goals and/or respond to

specific needs, e.g. accreditation, outcome assessment.

Facilitates Participation: Creates a positive faculty climate for research productivity,

teaching excellence and faculty engagement. Engages in participatory governance. Engages

in participatory governance and developing a culture of consensus, trust, cohesiveness and

zeal within the Department.

Communicates: Conducts regular Department meetings. Keeps faculty members informed

of Department, College, and institutional plans, activities, and expectations. Provides

leadership on issues related to diversity, sexual harassment, and equality. Chairs ensure that

their faculty are familiar with University, College and Department policies and procedures.

Supervises: The Chair provides direction with regard to faculty teaching, research and service

assignments and oversees faculty fulfillment of that assignment. The Chair is responsible for

securing and supervising all Departmental adjuncts and the work they do to ensure it meets the

high quality standards of the Department. Ensures that new faculty and adjunct faculty receive a

59

formal briefing of their duties and responsibilities. Supervises the clerical and technical staff in

the Department. Chairs (or their designees) may assign faculty advisors to graduate students

once they have been admitted.

Develops Faculty: Supports recruiting and mentoring faculty members. Provides guidance

and facilitates the work of search committees. Fosters the development of each faculty

member’s special talents and interests. Plans for use of adjuncts.

Supports Faculty: Provides assistance to faculty in their teaching, research, and professional

service. Shows appreciation and recognition of faculty accomplishments. Removes

roadblocks to faculty endeavors by identifying available resources, providing incentives,

supporting professional growth and offering necessary guidance.

Evaluates Faculty: Assesses and creates meaningful annual evaluation of faculty

performance based on regular monitoring. Evaluates the clerical and technical staff in the

Department. Makes salary and merit increase recommendations.

Makes Decisions: Supports the goals and procedures of the promotion and tenure process.

Writes letters of support/non-support with attention to legal issues and accuracy. Makes final

Department hiring recommendations to the Dean. Adheres to ethical principles and uses

reasoned judgment. Follows procedures as set forth in the Faculty Handbook, FIU Policies and

Procedures Manual, College Policies and Procedures Manual and the union contract.

Resolves Problems and Conflicts: The Chair monitor adherence to policies in order to take

actions that assure the smooth running of the Department on a day-to-day basis. Attempts to

resolve faculty problems or complaints. Refers to procedures set forth in the Faculty Handbook,

FIU Policies and Procedures Manual, College Policies and Procedures Manual and the union

contract.

Serves as a Model in Academic Endeavors: Teaches courses, seeks to publish research and

provides exemplary teaching excellence and research productivity within the constraints of the

administrative function of the job

2. STUDENT RELATIONS

Identifies programs and opportunities for students in the Department to promote advantageous

education experiences including specific programs, courses, internships or external competitions .

Handles individual student problems and grievances that are referred to the Chair.

Student Recruitment and Retention: Analyzes data, formulates plans, then implements and

evaluates recruitment and retention of students programs.

Internships & Placement: The Chair is responsible for facilitating internships appropriate to

the Department. In addition, the Chair may coordinate with Career Planning and Placement to

arrange interviewing and resume workshops as well as career panels. Encourages students in

the Department to take opportunities to enter into external competitions to enhance visibility.

60

Advisement: The Chair oversees the career advisement and schedule preparation of all students

in their Department. Monitors and supports those who advise students, including orientation

functions. Chair may advise students directly as necessary in undergraduate graduate and

doctoral programs.

Graduation Requirements: The Chair responds to specific student or student services requests

regarding graduation requirements and sign graduation files. The Chair monitors student forms

and processes.

Graduate Assistants: The Chair assigns graduate assistants (RA, TA or GA) to faculty, courses

and/or departmental tasks

Resolves Problems and Conflicts: The Chair attempts to resolve student problems or

complaints and follows procedures as set forth in the Student Handbook.

3. INTERNAL RELATIONS

The Chair works with the Dean and/or Associate Dean(s) as a member of a team for the good of the

College. Serves as conduit between faculty and administration by representing faculty to

administration and representing the administration to faculty members.

Vision: Develops a shared vision for Department and College. Disseminates and follows

though on implementing vision, plan and strategies. Engages in regular communications with

faculty and administrators.

Maintains Open Communication: Provides Dean with critical information through formal

reports and informal communication. Confers with the Dean on faculty recruitment, leaves and

sabbaticals, and other areas as requested by the Dean's office. Engages in regular

communications with faculty and administrators keeping each apprised of new information.

Serves as Liaison: Attempts to protect faculty and administration from encroachment upon

their rights and best interests. When issues or conflict of interests are brought forth, makes

determinations based on sound reasoning, fairness, ethical considerations and the best

interests of the unit and pursues that channel of action.

Creates Continuity: Establishes a process for continuity and succession of departmental

programs, functions and vision across changes in available personnel. Develops personnel to

fulfill changing roles and members

4. EXTERNAL RELATIONS

The Chair is responsible for the overall professional involvement of the Department. Initiates and

maintains liaisons with other areas of the College and University, external agencies and other

organizations, firms or institutions (to include partnerships). Promotes visibility of the Department

and its members.

Advisory Groups: Coordinates activities with advisory groups associated with the

Department.

61

Alumni Organizations: The Chair supports of the programs and services of the honorary

societies, the alumni, and assists with the alumni fund-raising

Internships and Job Placement: The Chair ensures that a working list of available internships

is available and that each is a quality experience for the student. Chairs ensure that the

Internship Guidelines are followed for students in that Department.

Professional Organizations: The Chair maintains involvement in academic professional

organizations appropriate to the Department and carefully supervises the professional service

activities of Departmental faculty, ensuring they become involved and known in the profession.

Information: Acquires in formation about activities in the profession, around the University

and the College so as to keep abreast of opportunities and provide faculty with current relevant

information. Knows important dates and events relevant to Departmental activities and goals.

Attends important meetings such as G-51, FIU ceremonies, budget meetings, and FIU

governance/ policy meetings. Obtains and disseminates information about policy, curricular and

other changes that impact the Department and its faculty members.

Visibility: Promotes visibility of the Department and its members through media, events and

professional networks, both formal and informal. Attends broad spectrum of events including

commencements, local, national and international conferences, student activities and

professional organizations.

62

5. PROGRAM & DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION: The Chair is responsible to the Dean. Communicates Department needs to the dean and interacts

with upper-level administrators regarding:

Planning: The Chair submits to the Dean prior to the beginning of each academic year a

Department activities plan for that academic year, including specific objectives to be met, any

unusual resources needed, etc., and will submit at year's end a succinct report specifying the

year's accomplishments. Establishes security and emergency policies and procedures for the

department.

Coordinating: The Chair coordinates activities to implement and follow up on short and

long-range Department programs, plans, and goals.

Scheduling: The Chair creates and establishes the course schedule and holds final authority on

scheduling matters and faculty teaching assignments for all Departmental courses. Schedules

courses to fulfill faculty teaching loads, minimize conflicts and maximize enrollment

opportunities for students. Attempts to schedule teaching in accordance with faculty preferences

when possible. Identifies errors in schedule of classes and classroom assignments; takes

necessary actions and resolves scheduling problems. Creates schedule on a three-semester basis

to ensure that all students are able to meet their requirements.

Managing Resources/Budget: Works with college administrators and committees to secure

and monitor Departmental resources. Once Departmental budgets are assigned, the Chair

advises the Dean if additional funding becomes necessary during the year. Recommends

specific technology, information and equipment acquisitions. Approves requests for

expenditures including travel and physical resources. Reviews, approves and signs contracts

for teaching and other services. Evaluates and makes determinations on space utilization

(offices, storage, labs, etc.). Approves payroll using ADP system.

Corresponding: Processes Department correspondence and requests for information. May

prepare and review offer letters. Responds to emails and phone calls.

Maintaining Records: Oversees the completion and signing of forms, surveys, grade rolls.

Maintains all essential Department records, including student records. Communicates with

the Dean’s office on inventories and security. Reviews Panthersoft Student Records.

Maintains records of Department expenditures, transfers and encumbrances using Panthersoft

Financials

Recruiting: The Chair is responsible for formulating a recruitment plan for his/her Department.

Participates in recruitment activities as they relate to the Department.

Maintaining Program Standards : The Chair ensures that the Department is meeting all

accreditation standards and that quality is met in all curricular offerings in that Department.

Completes or delegates creation of necessary accreditation reports. Oversees assurance of

learning process and learning compacts through review of course and program learning

objectives, review of pedagogical techniques used by faculty and measurement of student

knowledge acquisition. Reviews programs and makes recommendations for change to curricula.

Identifies and/or evaluates new program proposals. Signs off on all Departmental course and

other curricular changes.

63

OUTLINE FOR FINAL REPORT ON ROLE OF FIU DEPARTMENT CHAIR

Appendices

A- Interview Guide for Focus Groups

B- Integrated Focus Group Notes

C- Survey Instrument

D- Survey Results Table 1. Descriptive Information on Survey Sample

Table 2. Type of Appointment

Figure 1. Title of Position

Figure 2. How Selected Into Position

Figure 3. Nine or Twelve Month Appointment

Table 3. Survey Results on Priority of Tasks and Functions

Table 4. Survey Results on Time Spent on Tasks and Functions

Table 5. Survey Results on Guidance Available for Tasks and Functions

Table 6. Survey Results on Impact on Effectiveness of Different Obstacles

Table 7. Correlations Among Department Size Variables

Table 8. Salary Increment Amount

Figure 4. Increment Rolls Into Base

Table 9. Open-Ended Comments

E- Chair Job Description

64